DON'T buy betrayal at Antara!
Guardian
This is , without a DOUBT, the WORST game I've ever played..coming from
Sierra that's hard to believe! The graphics suck, they're worse than
wolf-3d. It doesn't even support 16bit color, still 256. I thought it
would at least use 16bit color. This game needs 3d acceleration more than
ANYTHING I've ever seen. Everything is grainy, and very pixellated. Even
running at higher than 1024x768, it looks atrocious. I can't even begin to
actually play the game itself, as it just LOOKS so disgusting. You'd
think, after taking almost a year longer thane expected, Sierra would have
utilitzed 16bit color. I'd return this pile, if I didn't get it for free
:(
What a shitty game, Sierra. And this is just after watching the intro, and
seeing what the 'game world' looks like..I'd hate to see what the rest of
the game is like, if this is what I think of it now :(
Max Weber
Uh, let me guess. You like Quake, right?
--Diomedes
"Guardian" <guar...@capital.net> wrote:
>:|This is , without a DOUBT, the WORST game I've ever played..coming from
Desslock
Guardian wrote:
>
>The graphics suck, they're worse than
> wolf-3d. It doesn't even support 16bit color, still 256. I thought it
> would at least use 16bit color.
That's a bit harsh - Even Quake and Quake 2 don't allow more than 256
colours. Hardly sufficient to condemn a game, let alone a
"story-oriented" rpg.
I can't even begin to
> actually play the game itself, as it just LOOKS so disgusting.
[snip]
> What a shitty game, Sierra. And this is just after watching the intro, and
> seeing what the 'game world' looks like..I'd hate to see what the rest of
> the game is like [snip]
Let's see, you ONLY looked at the introduction, and had a brief view of
the game world, and yet you felt qualified to state: "This is, without a
DOUBT, the WORST game I've ever played.." That's sufficient enough
exposure for you to conclusively prove that it's the worst game you've
ever seen, eh? That's quite a thorough analysis.
Don't get me wrong - I'm a big advocate of the theory that rpgs should
have detailed, modern graphics and sound, as well as clean, efficient
interface in order to compliment a deep fantasy world and plot (not at
the expense of it). The dated graphics of BIA and SOR are definitely
flaws against those games, in my opinion, but not necessarily fatal
ones.
Desslock
--
Desslock's Diablo Information Guide - Final Edition (2.3), Now Available
at Game Drek: http://www.pathcom.com/~kenl/ddig.htm
Gamespot enhanced version 2.0
http://www.gamespot.com/features/diablo/index.html
Gamepen RPG Weekly Therapy Column:
http://www.gamepen.com/therapy/pc.rpg/
Farlander
On 7 Jul 1997 22:24:30 GMT, "Guardian" <guar...@capital.net> wrote:
>This is , without a DOUBT, the WORST game I've ever played..coming from
>Sierra that's hard to believe! The graphics suck, they're worse than
>wolf-3d. It doesn't even support 16bit color, still 256. I thought it
>would at least use 16bit color. This game needs 3d acceleration more than
>ANYTHING I've ever seen. Everything is grainy, and very pixellated. Even
>running at higher than 1024x768, it looks atrocious. I can't even begin to
>actually play the game itself, as it just LOOKS so disgusting. You'd
>think, after taking almost a year longer thane expected, Sierra would have
>utilitzed 16bit color. I'd return this pile, if I didn't get it for free
>:(
>What a shitty game, Sierra. And this is just after watching the intro, and
>seeing what the 'game world' looks like..I'd hate to see what the rest of
>the game is like, if this is what I think of it now :(
>
So you, what, played it for about five minutes? Watched the intro,
wandered around on the beach in the begining, and then promptly jumped
on here to make that ignorant statement about it. It's just as well,
really. This game is probably way too complicated for the likes of
you.
daris
John Hoffman wrote:
>
> Boy does this post piss me off.
>
> Go to http://shadow.ix.netcom.com/antara/ and I'll put some screen shots up of
> this games shitty graphics.
>
> John
>
> In article <01bc8b24$22766800$bcad61cc@guardian>, "Guardian"
> <guar...@capital.net> wrote:
> >This is , without a DOUBT, the WORST game I've ever played..coming from
> >Sierra that's hard to believe! The graphics suck, they're worse than
> >wolf-3d. It doesn't even support 16bit color, still 256. I thought it
> >would at least use 16bit color. This game needs 3d acceleration more than
> >ANYTHING I've ever seen. Everything is grainy, and very pixellated. Even
> >running at higher than 1024x768, it looks atrocious. I can't even begin to
> >actually play the game itself, as it just LOOKS so disgusting. You'd
> >think, after taking almost a year longer thane expected, Sierra would have
> >utilitzed 16bit color. I'd return this pile, if I didn't get it for free
> >:(
> >What a shitty game, Sierra. And this is just after watching the intro, and
> >seeing what the 'game world' looks like..I'd hate to see what the rest of
> >the game is like, if this is what I think of it now :(
> >
>
> John Hoffman mailto:jhof...@ix.netcom.com
> My opinions do not necessarily reflect Netcom's http://shadow.ix.netcom.com/
SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTHS YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKERS
Guardian
Farlander <mi...@mail.ameritel.net> wrote in article
> wandered around on the beach in the begining, and then promptly jumped
> on here to make that ignorant statement about it. It's just as well,
> really. This game is probably way too complicated for the likes of
> you.
The graphics just suck.
no 3d acceleration..256 colors..get with the times.
and FYI, I've played every Sierra game, Origin game, LucasArts, etc,
etc..I've been around since the beginning..this is horrible.
Guardian
Max Weber <~*!-$*~id...@maxweber.com> wrote in article <5prvqv$kl1@dfw-
> Uh, let me guess. You like Quake, right?
graphics in regular quake are much better than what I've seen so far in
Antara.
Guardian
Desslock <dess...@interlog.com> wrote in article
> colours. Hardly sufficient to condemn a game, let alone a
> "story-oriented" rpg.
acceleration (I prefer the term enhancement tho), and 16bit color...Antara
looks pathetic. Quake made much better use of it's colors tho.
> Let's see, you ONLY looked at the introduction, and had a brief view of
> the game world, and yet you felt qualified to state: "This is, without a
> DOUBT, the WORST game I've ever played.." That's sufficient enough
> exposure for you to conclusively prove that it's the worst game you've
> ever seen, eh? That's quite a thorough analysis.
It definitely is. I fought a battle, and messed around a bit too. The
graphics are just such a turnoff.
> Don't get me wrong - I'm a big advocate of the theory that rpgs should
> have detailed, modern graphics and sound, as well as clean, efficient
> interface in order to compliment a deep fantasy world and plot (not at
> the expense of it). The dated graphics of BIA and SOR are definitely
> flaws against those games, in my opinion, but not necessarily fatal
> ones.
Well..I've never gave a shit about graphics, until all these '3d' games
popped up..If they're going to utilize 3d, they had better look good doing
it, using either 3d acceleration (enhancement), or at a minimum, 16bit
color. Sierra better have a patch out soon for this allowing 3d support.
NFLed
Gee, I like the game. I guess somewhat choppy movement and
not-at-all-state-of-the-art graphics aren't the main attraction of
a game for me. To each their own, that's for sure.
Antos Dragon
HAHA :) good one :)
On Mon, 07 Jul 1997 23:58:19 GMT, ~*!-$*~id...@maxweber.com (Max
Weber) wrote:
>Uh, let me guess. You like Quake, right?
>
>--Diomedes
>
>
>
>"Guardian" <guar...@capital.net> wrote:
>
>>:|This is , without a DOUBT, the WORST game I've ever played..coming from
>>:|Sierra that's hard to believe! The graphics suck, they're worse than
>>:|wolf-3d. It doesn't even support 16bit color, still 256. I thought it
>>:|would at least use 16bit color. This game needs 3d acceleration more than
>>:|ANYTHING I've ever seen. Everything is grainy, and very pixellated. Even
>>:|running at higher than 1024x768, it looks atrocious. I can't even begin to
>>:|actually play the game itself, as it just LOOKS so disgusting. You'd
>>:|think, after taking almost a year longer thane expected, Sierra would have
>>:|utilitzed 16bit color. I'd return this pile, if I didn't get it for free
>>:|:(
>>:|What a shitty game, Sierra. And this is just after watching the intro, and
>>:|seeing what the 'game world' looks like..I'd hate to see what the rest of
>>:|the game is like, if this is what I think of it now :(
>
>
>
remove the NOSPAM in my email address if its there
to email me...done to foil the USENET spam-bots...
Antos Dragon
OO
++
O ||
O||||[UDIC]=||##########>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>==============-
O ||
++
OO
John Hoffman
This is the sorriest thing I've seen in a long time. Please go find another
newsgroup to spend this nonsense in. Judging an RPG game by the quality of
it's graphics and not looking further is like judging a person by there
accent.
Betrayal in Antara is one of the best RPG games in a long time!
Graphics are a D or perhaps a C, they aren't really that horrible. ok.
None the less the game features a true computer role playing experience. You
have a game with a detailed story. The world unveals itself as you explore
and talk to people. The voice acting may not be top notch quality but it is
plenty good to draw you into the story and is a huge improvement over just
reading. One thing about this game, if you plan to just rush through it
you'll miss quite a bit. I finished chapter 1 but decided to restore to an
earlier save and do a bit more exploration. Each town seems to reveal new
quests that directly contribute to expanding the world. As you explore, your
characters by there individual interaction with NPCs develop more
personallity. There are interesting things to find, character skills to
develop. Plenty of NPC interaction.
So for an RPG I evaluate this game highly. Character development is nice.
Stats are complete and relevent. Magic system is interesting and complete.
Good NPC interaction with lots of detail. Evolving stories that expand on the
world. Somewhat nonlinear gameplay. Each chapter has a definite end but
there are numberous side quests. Combat is turn based with each character
having different capabilities, weapon attack styles. Plenty detail to the
combat system. You can view some info on your opponents. You use appropriate
attacks and magic to succeed. You also have a variety of tools, liquids, and
potions to drink, use on weapons and armor that affect the combat.
I don't know looks seems to me like this game comes up with pretty high
rankings on all the things that make a good RPG game. The graphics are but
one minor component of an RPG. Looks at games like Exile III which has
received numberous good reviews. The graphics on this game are FAR inferior
to BiA.
Nope I'd have to say, what a shitty post! Clearly someone who glances at
something and has the poor judgement to draw conclusions without even looking
beyond the eye candy. This is exactly why the RPG industry is in such
trouble. If it doesn't have lots of eye candy people like this jump in a
smear the game trying to convince people to not by an otherwise excellent
game.
John
PS what do I like in an RPG game. http://shadow.ix.netcom.com/DefineCRPG.htm
In article <01bc8b24$22766800$bcad61cc@guardian>, "Guardian"
<guar...@capital.net> wrote:
>This is , without a DOUBT, the WORST game I've ever played..coming from
>Sierra that's hard to believe! The graphics suck, they're worse than
>wolf-3d. It doesn't even support 16bit color, still 256. I thought it
>would at least use 16bit color. This game needs 3d acceleration more than
>ANYTHING I've ever seen. Everything is grainy, and very pixellated. Even
>running at higher than 1024x768, it looks atrocious. I can't even begin to
>actually play the game itself, as it just LOOKS so disgusting. You'd
>think, after taking almost a year longer thane expected, Sierra would have
>utilitzed 16bit color. I'd return this pile, if I didn't get it for free
>:(
>What a shitty game, Sierra. And this is just after watching the intro, and
>seeing what the 'game world' looks like..I'd hate to see what the rest of
>the game is like, if this is what I think of it now :(
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Hoffman
Boy does this post piss me off.
Go to http://shadow.ix.netcom.com/antara/ and I'll put some screen shots up of
this games shitty graphics.
John
In article <01bc8b24$22766800$bcad61cc@guardian>, "Guardian"
Sparky
"Guardian" <guar...@capital.net> wrote:
>This is , without a DOUBT, the WORST game I've ever played..coming from
>Sierra that's hard to believe! The graphics suck, they're worse than
>wolf-3d. It doesn't even support 16bit color, still 256. I thought it
>would at least use 16bit color. This game needs 3d acceleration more than
>ANYTHING I've ever seen. Everything is grainy, and very pixellated. Even
>running at higher than 1024x768, it looks atrocious. I can't even begin to
>actually play the game itself, as it just LOOKS so disgusting. You'd
>think, after taking almost a year longer thane expected, Sierra would have
>utilitzed 16bit color. I'd return this pile, if I didn't get it for free
>:(
>What a shitty game, Sierra. And this is just after watching the intro, and
>seeing what the 'game world' looks like..I'd hate to see what the rest of
>the game is like, if this is what I think of it now :(
Go back to Diablo loser, although it's a chrome-plated RPG wanna-be,
I'm sure it can hold the attention of even a lamer like you!
'I believe in nothing , everything is sacred,
I everything, nothing is sacred'
*remove nospam to reply
cha...@iex.net
On 7 Jul 1997 22:24:30 GMT, "Guardian" <guar...@capital.net> wrote:
>This is , without a DOUBT, the WORST game I've ever played..coming from
>Sierra that's hard to believe! The graphics suck, they're worse than
>wolf-3d. It doesn't even support 16bit color, still 256. I thought it
>would at least use 16bit color. This game needs 3d acceleration more than
>ANYTHING I've ever seen. Everything is grainy, and very pixellated. Even
>running at higher than 1024x768, it looks atrocious. I can't even begin to
>actually play the game itself, as it just LOOKS so disgusting. You'd
>think, after taking almost a year longer thane expected, Sierra would have
>utilitzed 16bit color. I'd return this pile, if I didn't get it for free
>:(
>What a shitty game, Sierra. And this is just after watching the intro, and
>seeing what the 'game world' looks like..I'd hate to see what the rest of
>the game is like, if this is what I think of it now :(
>
God, your an idiot. I suppose you buy books based on the cover alone.
Nice flamebait, though.
John Hoffman
If you say you did you're almost certainly lying.
Don't bother following up on any of these posts with a hope that I'll see
them. Since you could say anthing usefull you are on my kill file list as of
right now!
John
Deep breath....
Guardian
cha...@iex.net wrote in article <33c293f9...@news.usa.net>...
> God, your an idiot. I suppose you buy books based on the cover alone.
> Nice flamebait, though.
3dfx enhanced games. I can't get into the game..But 3dfx is interested in
helping Sierra do a 3dfx patch for it..
Guardian
NFLed <nf...@aol.com> wrote in article
> not-at-all-state-of-the-art graphics aren't the main attraction of
> a game for me. To each their own, that's for sure.
suitable. I'm not complaining about speed..just how horrible the
'movement' graphics are. Sierra could have EASILY used 16bit color for the
storyboard type scenes, speed wouldn't be an issue there, and probably
allowed 16bit color for the ingame world, for those machines that could
handle it..They chose not to, for some reason..
I've been bitching about Sierra's interface for a LONG time(click and watch
the movie), but the 3d environment is a total disaster for a company I once
held in such high regard.
Hopefully 3dfx and Sierra will get a patch out in a few months.
Guardian
John Hoffman <jhof...@spamoff.com> wrote in article <5psbis$ajm@dfw-
> Boy does this post piss me off.
>
> Go to http://shadow.ix.netcom.com/antara/ and I'll put some screen shots
up of
> this games shitty graphics.
ground, (the clouds are inatimate), the trees look like plastic or like
they're dying, the ground looks like brown styrofoam with moss growing on
it..
John, don't post screenshots of this game if you want to sell it..Notice
how Sierra excluded the 'movement mode' screenshots from the game box.
Guardian
> This is the sorriest thing I've seen in a long time. Please go find
another
> newsgroup to spend this nonsense in. Judging an RPG game by the quality
of
> it's graphics and not looking further is like judging a person by there
> accent.
poor.
> Betrayal in Antara is one of the best RPG games in a long time!
hour, probably at 1600x1200, so it might be bearable to look at.
> Graphics are a D or perhaps a C, they aren't really that horrible. ok.
(software 3d), and many many games utilizing hardware 3d that rivals
everything else..Sierra made a poor choice.
> None the less the game features a true computer role playing experience.
you either win, or you lose..no real RPG type elements, other than
character development.
> You
> have a game with a detailed story. The world unveals itself as you
explore
> and talk to people. The voice acting may not be top notch quality but it
is
> plenty good to draw you into the story and is a huge improvement over
just
> reading. One thing about this game, if you plan to just rush through it
> you'll miss quite a bit. I finished chapter 1 but decided to restore to
an
> earlier save and do a bit more exploration. Each town seems to reveal
new
> quests that directly contribute to expanding the world. As you explore,
your
> characters by there individual interaction with NPCs develop more
> personallity. There are interesting things to find, character skills to
> develop. Plenty of NPC interaction.
Sounds good if I can get past the graphics.
> So for an RPG I evaluate this game highly. Character development is
nice.
> Stats are complete and relevent. Magic system is interesting and
complete.
> Good NPC interaction with lots of detail. Evolving stories that expand
on the
> world. Somewhat nonlinear gameplay. Each chapter has a definite end but
> there are numberous side quests. Combat is turn based with each
character
> having different capabilities, weapon attack styles. Plenty detail to
the
> combat system. You can view some info on your opponents. You use
appropriate
> attacks and magic to succeed. You also have a variety of tools, liquids,
and
> potions to drink, use on weapons and armor that affect the combat.
Typical, and necessary for a good game
> I don't know looks seems to me like this game comes up with pretty high
> rankings on all the things that make a good RPG game. The graphics are
but
> one minor component of an RPG. Looks at games like Exile III which has
> received numberous good reviews. The graphics on this game are FAR
inferior
> to BiA.
I've played excellent games with shitty graphics..but look when these games
were releaed, and look when Antara was released!
> Nope I'd have to say, what a shitty post! Clearly someone who glances at
> something and has the poor judgement to draw conclusions without even
looking
> beyond the eye candy. This is exactly why the RPG industry is in such
> trouble. If it doesn't have lots of eye candy people like this jump in a
> smear the game trying to convince people to not by an otherwise excellent
> game.
I disagree..
LOOK when this game was released! 1997! The year of 3d! Sierra should have
taken another month or two, and added hardware 3d support, and/or software
16bit color. Sierra USED to put out a quality product, on all ends, and
ever since they adopted the Moron tm interface, and went video, everything
they've put out has lacked majorly in certain areas. I thought LSL7 was
their big comeback, it was a great game, with great sound, great graphics
(for that kind of game), and a great interface. I was hoping BiA would
follow suit..I guess Sierra is/was counting on the story/rpg qualities to
carry the game, but after seeing all the other 3d titles released PRIOR to
this, BiA is a MAJOR setback graphically.
Guardian
Sparky <dr...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in article
> I'm sure it can hold the attention of even a lamer like you!
> 'I believe in nothing , everything is sacred,
> I everything, nothing is sacred'
it was pretty fun. Not an RPG, but it was pretty fun. I'm not lame, nor
am I a loser. I've probably been around longer than you've had a clue, so.
I was just trying to point out that the graphics in the game are way below
par, especially for 1997.
Guardian
I'm going to actually play the game in 1600x1200 and see if It's actually a
good game, rather than base everything on graphics. First impressions are
important, and BiA doesn't leave me with a good one.
What really pisses me off, is how ignorant everyone is. I've played many a
game that had subpar graphics, sound, etc, just because it was fun, and/or
a 'good game'. BiA was released in 1997, Bard's Tale 3 was released, when
.1989-1990ish?
IF BiA had been released 2 years ago, maybe even a year ago, I wouldn't be
posting all these negative impressions.. But the graphics quality is just
SO shitty for a game released in 1997, deemed by many, the year of the 3d
accelerator. Ultima9 will REQUIRE a 3d accelerator. Good move Origin, bad
move Sierra. They held the game up for SO long, another month or two
adding 3d accelerator support, and 16bit color for software 3d, would have
gone a long way. Unfortunately I believe Sierra, now owned by some shit
company, was pressed for time, money, politics, and the corporate execs to
release the game NOW, AS IS.
this might not be the case at all..BUT..For a game released in 1997, the
game fails graphically, hands down.
I'm going to pretend It's 2 years in the past, and I'm using my 486DX2-66.
..I'll see what this game has game wise, and not just graphics wise.
BiA is graphically equivalent to Menzoberanzan, which I couldn't get into
either...because of the crappy 3d movement mode
THAT'S What BiA remind me of! Menzoberanzan! When was that released? 1993?
When was BiA released? 1997??
you figure it out.
Guardian
John Hoffman <jhof...@spamoff.com> wrote in article <5psc8i$ajm@dfw-
> You sir are full of shit. You didn't play any of these games to
completion.
> If you say you did you're almost certainly lying.
Betrayal at Krondor
every PQ (except 5, SWAT)
Every KQ
Every SQ
Conquests of Camelot, Longbow
Every LSL
Every Laura Bow
Every Phantasmagoria
Every Gabriel Knight
Willy Beamish
Eco Quest
ummm.....
Codename Iceman
Neuromancer
Wasteland
Bard's Tale I, II, III, I NES, III Amiga
Moneky Island
Moneky Island 2
Maniac Mansion (C64/amiga/ibm)
Zak McKracken and the Alien Mindbenders (c64/amiga/ibm)
Indiana jones - last crusade adventure
Idiaana Jones - Fate of Atlantis
Ultima 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7.5, 8
Ultima 1,2,3 (NES) (3,4,5 actual), Ultima 6 SNES, Ultima 7 SNES (sucked)
Wing Commander 1,2,3,4
Hell, why am I bothering.
> Don't bother following up on any of these posts with a hope that I'll see
> them. Since you could say anthing usefull you are on my kill file list
as of
> right now!
wow :)
That's cool!
I guess you can't take intelligent retorts
:)
Guardian
Antos Dragon <kyle...@NOSPAM.super.zippo.com> wrote in article
:)
Quake sucks single player, but rules multiplayer
GlQuakeworld is icing on the cake.,
Led Mirage
In article <5prvqv$k...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
Couldn't be. Quake uses 8-bit textures (that's why it looks so dull and
drab). >
Rob Sanders
On 8 Jul 1997 06:00:46 GMT, "Guardian" <guar...@capital.net> wrote:
>I was just trying to point out that the graphics in the game are way below
>par, especially for 1997.
If that's all you were trying to do, you shouldn't have said that this
was the worst game you've played, ever. *sniff* *sniff* I smell
troll.
-----------
Rob Sanders
Remove .antispam from my email address to reply
"Voom? Mate, this parrot wouldn't 'voom' if you put four million volts through it."
Rollo the Talking Dragon
What is wrong with liking Quake? I love Quake. That doenst mean that I dont
love Ultima and Bards Tale as well!
Rollo
Max Weber <~*!-$*~id...@maxweber.com> wrote in article
<5prvqv$k...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>...
> Uh, let me guess. You like Quake, right?
>
> --Diomedes
>
>
>
> "Guardian" <guar...@capital.net> wrote:
>
> >:|This is , without a DOUBT, the WORST game I've ever played..coming
from
> >:|Sierra that's hard to believe! The graphics suck, they're worse than
> >:|wolf-3d. It doesn't even support 16bit color, still 256. I thought
it
> >:|would at least use 16bit color. This game needs 3d acceleration more
than
> >:|ANYTHING I've ever seen. Everything is grainy, and very pixellated.
Even
> >:|running at higher than 1024x768, it looks atrocious. I can't even
begin to
> >:|actually play the game itself, as it just LOOKS so disgusting. You'd
Rollo the Talking Dragon
As I always say, how come Role-Players feel that they should NOT expect
great graphics in a game? They always say things like"Ultima 5 had crappy
Graphics but it is a classic". Yeah but when that game came out it was
cutting edge at the time. They were amazing graphics for that time period!
The thing is CRPGs should have the best graphics out of all of the genres
of games because almost all CRPGs are trying to simulate a WORLD.
Unfortunatley game companies feel that they can put out sub level Crgps
these days becasue they are so few and far between, that we will be
anything. Maybe that is true. Also, its funny how people complain about
having to buy a 3d card for Ultima 9. These same people will bitch if the
graphics in that game turn out to crappy. My point is just because most of
us enjoy a great story( most important), that doesnt mean that we cant have
great graphics as well.
Rollo the talking Dragon
-===UDIC===-
> Don't get me wrong - I'm a big advocate of the theory that rpgs should
> have detailed, modern graphics and sound, as well as clean, efficient
> interface in order to compliment a deep fantasy world and plot (not at
> the expense of it). The dated graphics of BIA and SOR are definitely
> flaws against those games, in my opinion, but not necessarily fatal
> ones.
>
> Desslock
Rollo the Talking Dragon
Exile III also has a more interactive world than BIA. Also it not nearly as
linear. Oh and Exile III does NOT cost 50 bucks!
Rollo
John Hoffman
Exile III has a very vintage Ultima 4 interface. Compared to BiA the world is
larger with each city having 6-10 or so NPCs. The NPC have keyword dialog
like the old ultima games. I give Exile good marks for NPC interaction and
world. Exile is somewhat nonlinear but there is definitely a game path you
need to follow in this game. The path is dictated by sudden death. Try
starting the game with a fresh party and heading north on the surface world.
You won't be around long. I paid $35 for Exile & the hint book.
Exile is clearly not about graphics. At $25 or whatever the price is most
people like it. So one must assume that with BiA it is an issue of price. If
the price were ~$40 the game would be ok?
BTW having done some programing myself, changing the graphics in a game isn't
a simple task. Interestingly BiA's designers decided to go with a generic
windows interface and not directx. This is I'm sure a major factor in the
quality of the graphics. This is also most unfortunate. I would have been
nice if BiA had great graphics too.
Anyway BiA at least has great gameplay and story. These are what a good RPG
is about anyway. I've seen quite a few games with great graphics and no
substance, ie Quake, Nemesis, Diablo, Dragon Lore, etc. To name a few. These
games got maybe several days play and then became boring. Great graphics just
don't the game make. I should say that Diablo did get considerable more play
time but that's not for being and RPG. Off hand, and I may be wrong, I can't
think of an RPG with great story and gameplay with better graphics than BiA.
Maybe I'd consider daggerfall better but it was lacking in the story
department. Crummy NPCs.
John
In article <01bc8ba1$06181b90$d31067cf@ntw_quattrof>, "Rollo the Talking
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ghost
In article <5ptjt1$n...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>, jhof...@spamoff.com (John Hoffman) wrote:
>BTW having done some programing myself, changing the graphics in a game isn't
>a simple task. Interestingly BiA's designers decided to go with a generic
>windows interface and not directx. This is I'm sure a major factor in the
>quality of the graphics. This is also most unfortunate. I would have been
>nice if BiA had great graphics too.
>
Just as a side comment here. I saw a message from someone at Sierra(on thier
message boards I think), that stated that the graphics for BiA were done
sometime last year when 256 colors was still the norm and before 3D cards had
taken hold and that it would take to much time(I think they estimated 4-5
months, especially since many of the graphics artists had probably gone on to
other products) and resources to go through and change all of the graphics in
the game over to 16-bit color and add in 3D support.
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>John Hoffman mailto:jhof...@ix.netcom.com
>My opinions do not necessarily reflect Netcom's http://shadow.ix.netcom.com/
Kilted Ghost Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
E-mail: kilted...@hotmail.com
"Real men wear kilts, even the dead ones."
David Henry
Guardian <guar...@capital.net> wrote in article ..Notice
> how Sierra excluded the 'movement mode' screenshots from the game box.
>
>
Just checking, but did you happen to try going to the "options" screen and
un-checking the "move in low-resolution" box? It's on the 2nd page...
Christopher A. Tew
>On 8 Jul 1997 06:00:46 GMT, "Guardian" <guar...@capital.net> wrote:
>
>>I was just trying to point out that the graphics in the game are way below
>>par, especially for 1997.
>
>If that's all you were trying to do, you shouldn't have said that this
>was the worst game you've played, ever. *sniff* *sniff* I smell
>troll.
Yeah. However, after seeing the picures that Mr. Hoffman put up,I
have to agree with Guardian about the graphics quality. They're
strictly amateur night. Aside from the bizarre textures, it seems
that the polygons can only be attached at right angles, something that
became dated when Looking Glass did Ultima Underworld. Also,
Hoffman's page indicates that the movement in the game is stepwise,
another dead concept. It doesn't help that the game runs in a window
(at least, it seems from the shots that there's no full-screen mode).
But the biggest problem with the graphics, to my eyes, is that they
bring the ground up at too steep an angle (this is also something that
Daggerfall did). It makes looking at the screen extremely
disorienting, as if the character were only a few inches tall.
I find these to be problems because this is 1997, and game companies
such as Looking Glass and Westwood did better 5+ years ago with their
CRPGs. 256 colors shouldn't be a hinderance in making things look
good, as the years of VGA taught us. After UItima Underworlds 1 and
2, there is no excuse for right-angled-only polygon constructs.
Likewise for stepwise movement...the last good CRPG (IMHO) that used
stepwise movement was EotB2, and that was years ago. Running in a
window tends to kill the sense of immersion that is so necessary in
CRPGs. Remember how much more immersive Ultima 7 was than Ultima 6
simply because the world of U7 took up all of the screen, with no
menus, stat bars, or any other stuff?
See, CRPGs are, in a way, all about immersion in another world. As
technology progresses, it hands developers the tools to make a more
immersive world. That is accomplised in five ways. 1) Story (that
covers all aspects such as plot and characterization); 2) Graphics ;3)
Sound; 4) User Interface; 5) A highly interactive world. Ultima 7,
which I consider to be the most immersive *game* ever, had all 5
covered and then some, especially in Serpent Isle/Silver Seed, when
the UI was more or less perfected with the advent of the keyring. For
its time, Ultima 7's graphics and sound pushed the envelope (and it
showed...it took a $3000-$5000 system back then to run it well), yet
the other three characteristics were also extraordinary. There is
absolutely no reason why, 8 years after Ultima 7 began development and
6 after it was released, other game companies cannot do exactly the
same thing with their CRPGs, especially companies like Sierra who have
an immense amount of resources to put into a game. A great CRPG can
have and should have great graphics, sound, story, and a detailed
world, each without any expense to the other.
CAT
--------------------------------------
And then there's Mick Jagger's lips...
how the fuck do you explain those?
--------------------------------------
Rollo the Talking Dragon
It doesn't help that the game runs in a window
> (at least, it seems from the shots that there's no full-screen mode).
The game does run in full screen mode. Have you even played it? Its amazing
how so many people can comment on something that havent even tried.
EEEk!
Rollo the Talking Dragon
Rollo the Talking Dragon
While Exile III graphics are not cutting edge they are definatlely NOT a
sore point. Acutally I really like the the graphics. They give the game a
sort of vintage feel. Like a Pumped up version of Ultima 5. One thing you
may not know is that Jeff Vogel re-did all of the graphics in the Exile
series to bring them up to the exile III standard! As a regisetered owner
I was able to upgrade to these new, graphically improved versions for
free!!! How many major companies would do any of this???
Rollo the Talking Dragon
-====UDIC====-
RayRuenes
I have a few gripes with the game, though that doesn't stop me from
exploring it further. The combat interface is a nice enhanced version of
Betrayal at Krondor's, and the "paper doll" equipment screen is a nice
touch. Even though the "tilted heads" and, for the most part, poor voice
actors get on my nerves, not to mention the slow first-person movement
screen and occasionally long hard drive and CD drive accesses, they don't
quite drain the game of its value, to me at least. I love it far more
than any Wolfenstein 3-D clone (the original Castle Wolfenstein on my C-64
was much more fun to play than any GLQuake).
Ramon (who's glad that this game hadn't succumbed to the real-time
combat frenzy for the attention-deficit disordered)
Guardian
mno...@mail.cern.ch wrote in article <un2nxd...@mail.cern.ch>...
> Heh, hard to believe is that Sierra, mass producer of dumb games
> released something like Betrayal at Krondor.
BAK was fun, and the graphics were acceptable for the time it was released.
Guardian
Rob Sanders <robsa...@mindspring.antispam.com> wrote in article
below
> >par, especially for 1997.
>
> If that's all you were trying to do, you shouldn't have said that this
> was the worst game you've played, ever. *sniff* *sniff* I smell
> troll.
This is the WORST game that I've ever played in 1997, graphically, and It
wasn't worth waiting 8 months for, graphically.
?
Guardian
Christopher A. Tew <tan...@jump.net> wrote in article
> have to agree with Guardian about the graphics quality. They're
> strictly amateur night.
:)
> Aside from the bizarre textures, it seems
> that the polygons can only be attached at right angles, something that
> became dated when Looking Glass did Ultima Underworld.
YEP! And Menzoberanzan too!
> Also,
> Hoffman's page indicates that the movement in the game is stepwise,
> another dead concept. It doesn't help that the game runs in a window
> (at least, it seems from the shots that there's no full-screen mode).
Yes there is, but you need to run in 640x480 for fullscreen, the readme.txt
or whatever says it was 'designed' to be played at 800x600, which is TOTAL
BS, because if it was designed for that, it would fill the screen, 'eh?
> But the biggest problem with the graphics, to my eyes, is that they
> bring the ground up at too steep an angle (this is also something that
> Daggerfall did). It makes looking at the screen extremely
> disorienting, as if the character were only a few inches tall.
yes it does...like I said, it's 'hard' to play. It just looks so fake, and
horrible.
> I find these to be problems because this is 1997, and game companies
> such as Looking Glass and Westwood did better 5+ years ago with their
> CRPGs. 256 colors shouldn't be a hinderance in making things look
> good, as the years of VGA taught us. After UItima Underworlds 1 and
> 2, there is no excuse for right-angled-only polygon constructs.
exactly.
> Likewise for stepwise movement...the last good CRPG (IMHO) that used
> stepwise movement was EotB2, and that was years ago. Running in a
> window tends to kill the sense of immersion that is so necessary in
> CRPGs. Remember how much more immersive Ultima 7 was than Ultima 6
> simply because the world of U7 took up all of the screen, with no
> menus, stat bars, or any other stuff?
you can use the cursor keys for non-stepwise movement.
This game is NOT ultima6 or 7..I think 5 had better graphics for the time
period.
> See, CRPGs are, in a way, all about immersion in another world. As
> technology progresses, it hands developers the tools to make a more
> immersive world. That is accomplised in five ways. 1) Story (that
> covers all aspects such as plot and characterization); 2) Graphics ;3)
> Sound; 4) User Interface; 5) A highly interactive world. Ultima 7,
> which I consider to be the most immersive *game* ever, had all 5
> covered and then some, especially in Serpent Isle/Silver Seed, when
> the UI was more or less perfected with the advent of the keyring. For
> its time, Ultima 7's graphics and sound pushed the envelope (and it
> showed...it took a $3000-$5000 system back then to run it well), yet
> the other three characteristics were also extraordinary. There is
> absolutely no reason why, 8 years after Ultima 7 began development and
> 6 after it was released, other game companies cannot do exactly the
> same thing with their CRPGs, especially companies like Sierra who have
> an immense amount of resources to put into a game. A great CRPG can
> have and should have great graphics, sound, story, and a detailed
> world, each without any expense to the other.
I agree 1000% ..
If BiA were released 2-3 years ago, it would have been acceptable.
not for nowadays tho.
Guardian
Rollo the Talking Dragon <Fr...@voicenet.com> wrote in article
> > (at least, it seems from the shots that there's no full-screen mode).
>
amazing
> how so many people can comment on something that havent even tried.
>
> EEEk!
which can then be maximized, but it doesn't fill the screen..I beliee
that's what he meant.
Guardian
NONE of the NPC's on the overworld move around! How lame! Ultima Underworld
had moving characters! And that's O L D.
Stand around the inn in the first town (your dad's INN), and wait for
nighttime, your 'father' just disappears..wait for daytime, he magically
appears..
wow..
good job Sierra!
:9
Guardian
dont
> love Ultima and Bards Tale as well!
Antos Dragon
I think the problem lies in the fear that good graphics will turn a
CRPG into an adventure game or *another* action hack and slasher.
(Hexen II anyone?) Gamers' fears are justified partly since many
many so-called RPG's that have come out since EOB 1 and 2 and UW have
had good graphics but have been single player slashathons or real time
games...or mediocre turn based games. (yes, U7 was very iimmersive
but it also started the trend to the "Clickfest"....)
Games SHOULD have a higher standard of graphics but the question is,
how will the actual GAME be affected? Sophisitcated <sp>? 3D engines
have traditionally (for all the good that word means) lent themselves
naturally to real time action, which is what these RPG gamers dread
(yes the graphics were AWESOME but this game is just another action
game with RPG elements). Maybe M&M 6 will demonstrate how this
problem should be solved...
Another issue on the graphics argument is the hardware the games ran
on. Scorpia did a good critique on this several years back in CGW
(Great graphics but More of the same old stuff....in other words, what
is this game doing now that hanst been done already? Is the actual
GAME Any better? Is it any more immersive? Or are the improvements
SOLELY focusing on a pretty picture? I forget what issue of CGW this
came from, but maybe sometime in 1991?) Yes, Ultima, Bards Tale, etc
used the most advanced graphics for the time BUT remember, these games
ran on 1 mhz computers with 64k of RAM, and someof these computers had
a 7 year lifespan.... And you didnt have to upgrade your computer
every 2 years to play the latest installment of a game then anyway.
But look at what has happened...and part of the problem has been the
mad upgrade race...the increasing technology demanding games witih
better and better pictures while no one is working on the GAME
ITSELF...
The dawn of the 16 bit revolution (this was 1988, the last great year
of the 8 bitters /6502's (great games like Ultima 5, Wasteland, Bards
Tale III, Gold box, Dragon Wars, et al, came out around this time) was
seen as a great time for companies to use this new technology to
create the most immersive games ever...using the increased RAM, cpu
power, and storage space to create more intricate stories, more
detail, more realistic graphics, in short, a better GAME. (Imagine
how even MORE awesome Ultima 4 or 5 would have been if the actual core
game elements (strategic turn based combat, innovative plot and story,
intelligent NPC Interaction, night and day and time (U5)) was
unchanged but it were created instead TODAY using today's technology,
instead of 1985) This vision of the 16 bit era, however, was
tarnished. Ultima 6, the last truly great Ultima, came out in 1990,
which had a even MORE Detailed world with beautiful graphics and
traditional Ultima elements but even THIS classic had faults.
(Changing armor in the middle of combat? (couldnt they have prevented
any armor changing if a monster was in sight?? and note: how many
newer games allow ANY equipment to be swapped even when a monster is
whomping on you? need a list? email me...) Fixed encounters that
"regenerate" when you leave that particular screen of the dungeon,
combined with Sprawling, monotonous dungeons, instead of smaller more
detailed areas like in Ultima 5... (this was annoying as
hell....having to fight your way through Reapers and gianit bats, to
move 30 squares away, come back and have them reappear AGAIN...) Well,
after 1989, somehow the industry started shifting more into real time.
It started with the phased combat in EOB 1 and 2 (which was OK but
some gamers didnt like having to do everything while the monsters were
beating on you), and got worse from there (read: HOW was the actual
GAME made any better?? How was the Storyline, and plot, and NPC
interaction and ability to interact with the environment made any
better?). Somehow, the atittude was that these newer graphic games
had to be in real time (Wizardry was one of the few to avoid that
problem). Outside of gems like Ultima Underworld (which showed the
industry how single player real time games SHOULD be done, (although
you could STILL bring your inventory up and swap splint mail for plate
mail in about 4 seconds...) too bad the industry (read: Bethseda)
hasnt listened....) the quest to make more complex and immersive
RPG's just never surfaced properly.. Why should I have to spend
another 2k on a new computer every couple of years to play a new RPG
that only delivers MOTSOS (More of the same old stuff) with pretty
pictures and probably even less gameplay? or buy a $50 dollar game
that gives me 40 hours of play time when the classics gave over 100
hours?? (Even some of these shareware titles give twice as much game
for the dollar, at half the price). It seemed everyone became focused
on graphics and multimedia. Ultima 7 came out, which had the best
graphics in the industry but ALSO the worst combat out of ANY RPG to
that date (click click click, no NPC control, click as fast as you can
and hope Iolo doenst shoot u with his X bow :) or the Mighty Avatar,
who Conquered the Stygian Abyss, and the three evil lords, would die
in three blows ?... Why was this? was this click click click FUN? Did
it ADD to the game? I wont even discuss ultima 8 although Diablo is
what Ultima 8's combat should have been like...(diablo was the
ultimate clickfest, but it sure did the job better than U8)
Basically even though I dont speak for everyone on this group, it
seemed RPG gamers became jaded by all the emphasis on great graphics
that was pervading the scene, and gameplay was turned too much into
real time...and no one was focusing on the whole. How many RPGs
with those fancy graphics feature good text NARRATION or Descriptions
of the environments? I woudlnt mind seeing an excellent 3D rendered
picture of a Spider God (Bards Tale), as long as the game described
the encounter outside of just you CLICKING a mouse on the temple and
it turning into a Spinner...obviously the marriage of text narration
and splended graphics would REALLY enhance the spooky feeling...and by
george, throw in a text parser system ala Zork for even more
interactive possibilities! (even if just making this optional). Dont
tell me we dont have the technology to improve on what was done 15
years ago!
I dont mind a RPG requiring a 3D card but there needs to be a good
reason WHY it *has* to use one. Ive been wary of the Ultimas ever
since the switch to boring, senseless real time combat, and I think
many posters are also wondering if U9 will turn into "RPG Quake", or
whether the new graphics will truly help the entire GAME out...I dont
know what a rotoscoping, polygon, rotating world will do for U9, as I
never played Syndicate wars (didnt it also have scaling and rotation,
but NOT requre a 3D card)....
Remember the fear is simple: 3D = real time/adventure/pretty pictures,
in the majority of cases so far...and we need a VERY good game to
dispel that fear.
Now; this doesnt mean that the vision can NOT be attained...but it
definitely will take a new attitude and outlook on the industry in
order for this to happen. Might and magic 6 might truly do this
right. Fallout looks great, Baldur's Gate also looks like it will be
a truly groundbreaking game (but we'll have to see the final product).
That should be the real reason to upgrade a computer, to play games
that not only make breakthroughs in graphics, but also take gameplay
to a whole new level, not to be able to play a Quake clone that has
shallow gameplay qualities). Even if the storyline has been done
before the EXECUTION of it and the plot can change...
I always thought the ideal RPG would feature a beautiful smooth
scrolling environment, combined with tactical turn based combat. (the
combat could be top down), or even being able to switch perspective
from 3D to 2D/2 1/2 D on the fly, all WITHOUT turning a game into a
Hexen II (which I plan to buy anyway), while keeping the NPC's and
plot and interaction of an Ultima title. Imagine being able to
interact in an errie environment (remember Bard's Tale)? moving in
breathaking 3d dungeons, with clearly written descrpitions at many
major points . and also for interacting with the environment. (e.g.
you could use the mouse or the keyboard for certain puzzles or using
items. or even a parser based system). and of course NO CHANGING ARMOR
in Combat (unless you want your character to be AC10 for several
rounds, with no ability to attack or cast spells...)
Who knows...the goals of RPG's might still be attainable...with a
little work.
On 8 Jul 1997 12:57:35 GMT, "Rollo the Talking Dragon"
<Fr...@voicenet.com> wrote:
remove the NOSPAM in my email address if its there
to email me...done to foil the USENET spam-bots...
Antos Dragon
OO
++
O ||
O||||[UDIC]=||##########>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>==============-
O ||
++
OO
Guardian
Rollo the Talking Dragon <Fr...@voicenet.com> wrote in article
> As I always say, how come Role-Players feel that they should NOT expect
> great graphics in a game?
Because they're used to shitty graphics for all the best games
ultima 1-5, Bard's Tale 1-3, etc
Wasteland, etc.
> They always say things like"Ultima 5 had crappy
> Graphics but it is a classic". Yeah but when that game came out it was
> cutting edge at the time. They were amazing graphics for that time
period!
Yes they were, which is why Antara is such a disappointment.
> The thing is CRPGs should have the best graphics out of all of the genres
> of games because almost all CRPGs are trying to simulate a WORLD.
> Unfortunatley game companies feel that they can put out sub level Crgps
> these days becasue they are so few and far between, that we will be
> anything.
yep..I agree.
> Maybe that is true. Also, its funny how people complain about
> having to buy a 3d card for Ultima 9.
HAHA, they won't complain after seeing what the thing can do!!
$150 for the best 3d around now, and for the next year and a half or two.
GlQuakeworld, I76, Outlaws, Mercs, Descent 2, Prey, Unreal , POD, Ultima9,
etc, etc, etc..
> These same people will bitch if the
> graphics in that game turn out to crappy.
They would be if they didn't use 3d acceleration!
After seeing GlQuakeworld, and other 3d enhanced games, It's hard to go
back to software 3d.
> My point is just because most of
> us enjoy a great story( most important), that doesnt mean that we cant
have
> great graphics as well.
exactly..all at 30fps, 16bit color, 640x480, and all the other 3dfx
features the 3dfx supports..
Origin made a FANTASTIC decision by deciding to REQUIRE 3d cards.
A game devloped AROUND hardware 3d will kick ass over a patched-up software
3d game.
Guardian
Ghost <kilted_ghost@hotmail.*REMOVE*com> wrote in article
thier
> message boards I think), that stated that the graphics for BiA were done
> sometime last year when 256 colors was still the norm and before 3D cards
had
> taken hold and that it would take to much time(I think they estimated 4-5
> months, especially since many of the graphics artists had probably gone
on to
> other products) and resources to go through and change all of the
graphics in
> the game over to 16-bit color and add in 3D support.
We've waited that long for Interstate 76 Directshit support, and it's still
beta.
I'd be willing to wait.
So should have Sierra..releasing sub-par products will not go far to redeem
their reputation.
The Keeper
On Tue, 08 Jul 1997 03:23:00 GMT, dr...@nospamhotmail.com (Sparky)
wrote:
>"Guardian" <guar...@capital.net> wrote:
>
>>This is , without a DOUBT, the WORST game I've ever played..coming from
>>Sierra that's hard to believe! The graphics suck, they're worse than
>>wolf-3d. It doesn't even support 16bit color, still 256. I thought it
>>would at least use 16bit color. This game needs 3d acceleration more than
>>ANYTHING I've ever seen. Everything is grainy, and very pixellated. Even
>>running at higher than 1024x768, it looks atrocious. I can't even begin to
>>actually play the game itself, as it just LOOKS so disgusting. You'd
>>think, after taking almost a year longer thane expected, Sierra would have
>>utilitzed 16bit color. I'd return this pile, if I didn't get it for free
>>:(
>>What a shitty game, Sierra. And this is just after watching the intro, and
>>seeing what the 'game world' looks like..I'd hate to see what the rest of
>>the game is like, if this is what I think of it now :(
>
>Go back to Diablo loser, although it's a chrome-plated RPG wanna-be,
>I'm sure it can hold the attention of even a lamer like you!
>'I believe in nothing , everything is sacred,
> I everything, nothing is sacred'
>
>*remove nospam to reply
>
I find this "Go back to Diablo loser" shit insulting . I happen to
think Diablo is the best computer rpg type game sense UW1. So fuck
off asshole. Can I say that here ?? hehe . IMO If Diablo had a bigger
world like an Ultima game it would be unbelivable!
Heres my good rpg list
uw1 & 2
Diablo
Lands of Lore
System Shock
Ive played them all sense EOB .
I'm hopeing Lands of Lore 2 will be good.
The Keeper
Desslock
Rollo the Talking Dragon wrote:
>
> As I always say, how come Role-Players feel that they should NOT expect
> great graphics in a game?
[snip]
My point is just because most of
> us enjoy a great story( most important), that doesnt mean that we cant have
> great graphics as well.
>
> Rollo the talking Dragon
> -===UDIC===-
We're on the same "page", man.
I've posting the exact same message for a loooong time.
Desslock
--
Desslock's Diablo Information Guide - Final Edition (2.3), Now Available
at Game Drek: http://www.pathcom.com/~kenl/ddig.htm
Gamespot enhanced version 2.0
http://www.gamespot.com/features/diablo/index.html
Gamepen RPG Weekly Therapy Column:
http://www.gamepen.com/therapy/pc.rpg/
James Most
Gregg Abbott
Guardian wrote:
>
> This is , without a DOUBT, the WORST game I've ever played..coming from
> Sierra that's hard to believe! The graphics suck, they're worse than
> wolf-3d. It doesn't even support 16bit color, still 256. I thought it
> would at least use 16bit color. This game needs 3d acceleration more than
> ANYTHING I've ever seen. Everything is grainy, and very pixellated. Even
> running at higher than 1024x768, it looks atrocious. I can't even begin to
> actually play the game itself, as it just LOOKS so disgusting. You'd
> think, after taking almost a year longer thane expected, Sierra would have
> utilitzed 16bit color. I'd return this pile, if I didn't get it for free
> :(
> What a shitty game, Sierra. And this is just after watching the intro, and
> seeing what the 'game world' looks like..I'd hate to see what the rest of
> the game is like, if this is what I think of it now :(
Interesting. You hear a lot of talk from RPGers who say, "it's not the
graphics, it's the gameplay that counts." Then when a game comes out
with slightly dated graohics, people cry, "Don't buy this game, the
graphics suck!" Maybe that's why the market is flooded by lots of
ganmes which are basically interactive movies ("Aah, awesome graphics
shot on location"). I've played the Antara demo, and the graphics
weren't great, but it appeared to have an interesting RPG system behind
it. How is the game as a whole? So the graphics might be a year or two
behind the current state of the art, but how is the story, and is the
RPG system decent?
Gregg Abbott
Antos Dragon wrote:
>
<snip>
> Another issue on the graphics argument is the hardware the games ran
> on. Scorpia did a good critique on this several years back in CGW
> (Great graphics but More of the same old stuff....in other words, what
> is this game doing now that hanst been done already? Is the actual
> GAME Any better? Is it any more immersive? Or are the improvements
> SOLELY focusing on a pretty picture? I forget what issue of CGW this
> came from, but maybe sometime in 1991?) Yes, Ultima, Bards Tale, etc
> used the most advanced graphics for the time BUT remember, these games
> ran on 1 mhz computers with 64k of RAM, and someof these computers had
> a 7 year lifespan.... And you didnt have to upgrade your computer
> every 2 years to play the latest installment of a game then anyway.
> But look at what has happened...and part of the problem has been the
> mad upgrade race...the increasing technology demanding games witih
> better and better pictures while no one is working on the GAME
> ITSELF...
<snip>
Actually, the upgrade race was in full force back in the early 80's.
The big difference, was the form of upgrade one had to take. As 8-bit
games gave way to 16 bit games, the transition was not nearly as smooth
back then, Instead of upgrading what needed upgrading, what happened
was worse, orphanization! In other words, you actually had to buy a
completely new system and loose all the software investment you made
(new word processer, new paint programs, and other new odds and ends
which have to bought and learned). With PCs, even after a major
upgrade, such as a motherboard change, most, if not all the old software
worked as before (some worked even better, and a few worked too well and
needed mo'slo to tame it). The upgrade race has always been in force,
only the process has been made much smoother so you tend to upgrade more
frequently.
mno...@mail.cern.ch
Heh, hard to believe is that Sierra, mass producer of dumb games
released something like Betrayal at Krondor. The fact that they made
a sequel only gives them credit. The graphics in BaK is still
acceptable for me, and the 3D party combat system that was there is
very original. It's the only RPG that I know of, where the condition
of a character affects all his abilities, including fight, movement
and whatever.
Maybe you have chosen a wrong newsgroup to post? I can imagine
myself posting something in games.action saying that quake is the
worst game I ever played because it has no story line or NPC
"interaction". They would probably roll on the floor laughing.
So I think people in this group do reading your post.
Marcin
John Hoffman
In article <01bc8bce$fe062270$757c67cf@ntw_quattrof>, "Rollo the Talking Dragon" <Fr...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>
>
>It doesn't help that the game runs in a window
>> (at least, it seems from the shots that there's no full-screen mode).
>
>The game does run in full screen mode. Have you even played it? Its amazing
>how so many people can comment on something that havent even tried.
>
>EEEk!
>
>
>
I believe he's objecting to the fact that the game has a tiny border around
the outside framing it in the window.
Yep, total removes and imersive effect. Of course I don't mind the monitor
frame... ;)
cyp...@pacbell.net
On Tue, 08 Jul 97 16:25:08 GMT, kilted_ghost@hotmail.*REMOVE*com
(Ghost) wrote:
>>
>
>Just as a side comment here. I saw a message from someone at Sierra(on thier
>message boards I think), that stated that the graphics for BiA were done
>sometime last year when 256 colors was still the norm and before 3D cards had
>taken hold and that it would take to much time(I think they estimated 4-5
>months, especially since many of the graphics artists had probably gone on to
>other products) and resources to go through and change all of the graphics in
>the game over to 16-bit color and add in 3D support.
>
>
Considering that DOOM has been around for 4 years already, these kinds
of graphics are unacceptable. Bad graphics doesn't make a bad game,
but I'd rather pay for good graphics and good story. I'll save my
money for Fallout or M&M6.
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>John Hoffman mailto:jhof...@ix.netcom.com
>>My opinions do not necessarily reflect Netcom's http://shadow.ix.netcom.com/
>
>
Victor A. Danilchenko
In forest deep, where dark things sleep, The Keeper penned this in one fell
sweep:
>
>I find this "Go back to Diablo loser" shit insulting . I happen to
>think Diablo is the best computer rpg type game sense UW1. So fuck
>off asshole. Can I say that here ?? hehe . IMO If Diablo had a bigger
>world like an Ultima game it would be unbelivable!
>
>Heres my good rpg list
>uw1 & 2
>Diablo
>Lands of Lore
>System Shock
<LOL> My, my, what a poor concept of CRPG you have!
UW1&2 are RPG, OK.
Diablo and Lands of Lore are not really RPG -- especially not Diablo,
which is simply a well-done 3rd-person shoot'em-up (well, cut'em-up).
--
Victor A. Danilchenko
min...@ix.netcom.com (home)
dani...@evermore.cs.umass.edu (college)
http://www.cs.umass.edu/~danilche
Rollo the Talking Dragon
I dont only play CRPGs, I like to play Quake, Warcraft, Dungeon Keeper. The
thing that sucks is that all of these games are on the cutting edge, and my
FAVORITE genre, CRPGs, are normally not. I applaud Interplay( Fallout and
Baldurs Gate) and Origin for try to design Crpgs that take advantage of
todays Technology. I understand that there will be modules sold for Baldurs
gate that will increase replability!
On a side note, what was the last Really good Crpg that you have played? I
think Exile III was better than Sor and BIA! Also, I like the graphics in
E3. They have a Super Ultima 5 look. :)
Rollo the Talking Dragon
Desslock <dess...@interlog.com> wrote in article
<33C2F1...@interlog.com>...
Bob Vlasaty
I said "rpg type" game. I dont really care if the game is a true rpg
as long as its fun..
Brian C Robinson
[I wanted to quote the previous poster but there was SO MUCH.]
Be that as it may, I must say that I completely agree with just
about everything you have said. I would like to see a copy of this
message forwarded to all the major RPG companies (interplay, Origin, New
World, etc) They could all stand to learn something.
Just to expand a little on what was written, I would have to say
that there are two things that I've found in CRPGs that can really draw me
into the game.
1) Freedom of action, with a non-linear plot. The primary
example of this is Wasteland. You could run thru the game world blowing
up everyone you saw, or you could be nice and diplomatic. It was your
choice.
2) Real conversation. IMHO the last games we saw this in were U6
and the Worlds of Ultima games (which although oft ignored were great
games also). The modern tree based conversation system used in every game
is either unsatisfying ot straight annoying. Especially in U8, you would
end up clicking on something you thought would give you more information,
but the stupid NPC would spout about twenty lines, each requiring a click,
that just summarized the stuff they had said before.
Although I doubt any real RPGer actually likes this system, Origin
(the ones who started the ball rolling) keeps using it, as does every
other RPG since. At the same time, there came this idea that "the
keyboard is bad." I played u6 almost entirely using the keyboard, and it
was fine. Then u7 didn't even have any keyboard commands. All point and
click.
Another thing companies intent on putting out an RPG need to learn
is that the "save the princess," or the "unite X artifacts parts" plots
just don't cut it. Starting with U4, the Ultimas had a real plot, worthy
of some thought. The best plot, IMHO, was U6 where your enemies, the
gargoyles, end up being misunderstood. Come up with a real plot, will ya?
--
'Take me with with you..." - Trent
Doug Gould
kyle...@super.NOSPAM.zippo.com (Antos Dragon) writes:
[...]
> Games SHOULD have a higher standard of graphics but the question is,
> how will the actual GAME be affected? Sophisitcated <sp>? 3D engines
> have traditionally (for all the good that word means) lent themselves
> naturally to real time action, which is what these RPG gamers dread
> (yes the graphics were AWESOME but this game is just another action
> game with RPG elements). Maybe M&M 6 will demonstrate how this
> problem should be solved...
[much text deleted...]
You captured the exact feeling I have about the current state of the
industry.
I think the "problem" is that game developers are being forced to
spend a lot of time and effort taking advantage (and pushing the
limits) of the latest technology breakthroughs. The market today
demands that they do so above all. The truly successful games (and by
successful I mean $$$ makers) that have been developed recently
deliver more than flashy graphics, but they all have the basic pretty
package as a primary requirement of success.
Sometimes I think the best thing that could happen for today's gaming
industry would be a freeze in the hardware platform. Then software
companies would have to put effort into making their games stand out
from the crowd not because they use the latest MMX or 3D graphics
technology, but because their ideas are original, their stories are
captivating, and their games are *fun*.
The upgrade race may have started in the eighties, but you'll have to
admit, it was much less of a factor than it is today. How many years
was the C64 around, essentially unchanged? Can you honestly expect to
play a game released this summer on a system you bought four years
ago? (Say a 486-66?) Sure, there will we a few turn based strategy
games and maybe an rpg or two, but that's it. That is *not* the
market of the mid eighties.
Most big games are fairly long term projects. How many complete
re-writes happen because some critical technology has crept up that
they just *have* to take advantage of? But does all this effort
really make a game more enjoyable? I contend that the answer is no.
Sure, you can impress your friends or show off your new $3000
computer, but after a couple of hours the flashy graphics fade into
the background. If there isn't a fundamentally enjoyable game at the
core, the box will quickly end up on the shelf.
I think the last really good crpg I played was Crusaders of the Dark
Savant (U7 was O.K too). I have hopes that some of the newer titles
will match or succeed it, but I'll just have to wait and see. One
thing's for certain, it's not going to be an opening 3d rendered
intro, or a fancy real-time arcade-like interface that grabs my
attention.
So listen up, game developers! You'd better pay some more attention
to the things that count. Write an interesting story, use a UI that
is pleasant and allows the gamer to interact with your world, come up
with some original ideas, and above all it had better be fun, 'cause
*I* won't be impressed by just any old MMX/3d/real-time/arcade/click-
fest that you tray to pass off as an rpg. Okay?
Cheers,
Doug
Geadean Dragon
Guardian wrote...
>I disagree..
>LOOK when this game was released! 1997! The year of 3d! Sierra should have
>taken another month or two, and added hardware 3d support, and/or software
>16bit color. Sierra USED to put out a quality product, on all ends, and
>ever since they adopted the Moron tm interface, and went video, everything
>they've put out has lacked majorly in certain areas. I thought LSL7 was
>their big comeback, it was a great game, with great sound, great graphics
>(for that kind of game), and a great interface. I was hoping BiA would
>follow suit..I guess Sierra is/was counting on the story/rpg qualities to
>carry the game, but after seeing all the other 3d titles released PRIOR to
>this, BiA is a MAJOR setback graphically.
>
I'm taking a wild guess: You bought a 3DFX card not long ago, right?
Please don't take up NG space slamming a game just because Sierra
didn't add additional support the 5% of the gaming community which
bought into a non-standardized 3D accelerator. MOST people in this
group will not take into account whether it has 3D acceleration
supported or not.
I've played the demo and it's nowhere near as horrible looking as you
describe. The art style for the characters and some of the scenery is
not what I would have chosen, however, it is just that: a STYLE.
Lone_War
Rollo the Talking Dragon wrote:
>
> As I always say, how come Role-Players feel that they should NOT expect
> Graphics but it is a classic". Yeah but when that game came out it was
> cutting edge at the time. They were amazing graphics for that time period!
> of games because almost all CRPGs are trying to simulate a WORLD.
> Unfortunatley game companies feel that they can put out sub level Crgps
> these days becasue they are so few and far between, that we will be
> having to buy a 3d card for Ultima 9. These same people will bitch if the
> graphics in that game turn out to crappy. My point is just because most of
> us enjoy a great story( most important), that doesnt mean that we cant have
> great graphics as well.
>
> Rollo the talking Dragon
> -===UDIC===-
>
> > have detailed, modern graphics and sound, as well as clean, efficient
> > interface in order to compliment a deep fantasy world and plot (not at
> > the expense of it). The dated graphics of BIA and SOR are definitely
> > flaws against those games, in my opinion, but not necessarily fatal
> > ones.
Lets face it, it is a SIERRA game, I am surprised it ran straight out of
the box. BTW, is this the Beta release or have they implemented the full
game on this one.
As you can see, I am STILL pissed off at them over Compost.
--
Billie F. Krieger III
Dragon Clan Spy/Trader
Death, death, death to all who oppose us!
Lone_War
Guardian wrote:
>
> Ghost <kilted_ghost@hotmail.*REMOVE*com> wrote in article
> So should have Sierra..releasing sub-par products will not go far to redeem
> their reputation.
They have a reputation that is redeemable. Damn, I have not been doing
my job properly.
Carl Beetz
This statement is a little harsh..."Guardian" has been posting some
reasonable and moderate comments about this game. I have been somewhat
more harsh, but since I am still only a little bit into the game I will
not rip it a new one yet. I do feel that after the wait of what, a
couple of years (?) since BAK for this sequel that it has surprisingly
little to offer. Yes, BAK was really popular and unique and a lot of
fun. But the graphics of BIA are abysmal and the game has been a little
too "cutesy" so far. I have had a real hard time getting in to it
because of this. I bought on the first day it was out and expected more
I guess. I kind of wish that I could get that money back. But I am in
the mood for a good rpg right now ... (all right ANY rpg...)
Anyway, back to the original point. It is way out of line to say that
the person is full of it when he has displayed some insight into what he
is talking about...just makes you look pretty foolish.
Carlos
John Hoffman wrote:
>
> In article <01bc8b3b$253394c0$b2ad61cc@guardian>, "Guardian" <guar...@capital.net> wrote:
> >Farlander <mi...@mail.ameritel.net> wrote in article
> >> So you, what, played it for about five minutes? Watched the intro,
> >> wandered around on the beach in the begining, and then promptly jumped
> >> on here to make that ignorant statement about it. It's just as well,
> >> really. This game is probably way too complicated for the likes of
> >> you.
> >Yep.
> >The graphics just suck.
> >no 3d acceleration..256 colors..get with the times.
> >and FYI, I've played every Sierra game, Origin game, LucasArts, etc,
> >etc..I've been around since the beginning..this is horrible.
> >
> You sir are full of shit. You didn't play any of these games to completion.
> If you say you did you're almost certainly lying.
>
> Don't bother following up on any of these posts with a hope that I'll see
> them. Since you could say anthing usefull you are on my kill file list as of
> right now!
>
> John
>
> Deep breath....
Clee
Gregg Abbott wrote:
>
> Guardian wrote:
> >
> > This is , without a DOUBT, the WORST game I've ever played..coming from
> > Sierra that's hard to believe! The graphics suck, they're worse than
> > wolf-3d. It doesn't even support 16bit color, still 256. I thought it
> > would at least use 16bit color. This game needs 3d acceleration more than
> > ANYTHING I've ever seen. Everything is grainy, and very pixellated. Even
> > running at higher than 1024x768, it looks atrocious. I can't even begin to
> > actually play the game itself, as it just LOOKS so disgusting. You'd
> > think, after taking almost a year longer thane expected, Sierra would have
> > utilitzed 16bit color. I'd return this pile, if I didn't get it for free
> > :(
> > What a shitty game, Sierra. And this is just after watching the intro, and
> > seeing what the 'game world' looks like..I'd hate to see what the rest of
> > the game is like, if this is what I think of it now :(
>
> graphics, it's the gameplay that counts." Then when a game comes out
> with slightly dated graohics, people cry, "Don't buy this game, the
> graphics suck!" Maybe that's why the market is flooded by lots of
> ganmes which are basically interactive movies ("Aah, awesome graphics
> shot on location"). I've played the Antara demo, and the graphics
> weren't great, but it appeared to have an interesting RPG system behind
> it. How is the game as a whole? So the graphics might be a year or two
> behind the current state of the art, but how is the story, and is the
> RPG system decent?
Boy, you're right. When it comes down to it, graphics do count, even though gamers are quite to jump and say
"It's the gameplay". Kind of like saying, I'm looking for a woman this has a great personality, etc. But you
know that looks do count!
Clee
Mikko P Vuorinen
In <01bc8b61$787edd80$b4ad61cc@guardian> "Guardian" <guar...@capital.net> writes:
>John Hoffman <jhof...@spamoff.com> wrote in article
><5psb86$a...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>...
>> This is the sorriest thing I've seen in a long time. Please go find
>another
>> newsgroup to spend this nonsense in. Judging an RPG game by the quality
>of
>> it's graphics and not looking further is like judging a person by there
>> accent.
>No it's not. I can't get into the game, because the graphic quality is so
>poor.
Will someone shove the graphics in his ass?
--
)))) (((( + Mikko Vuorinen + >kiss girl
)) OO `oo'((( + mvuo...@cc.helsinki.fi + She slaps you.
6 (_) ( ((( + http://www.helsinki.fi/~mvuorine/ +
`____c 8__/((( + Dilbon@IRC + >quit
NCrier
>Off hand, and I may be wrong, I can't
>think of an RPG with great story and gameplay with better graphics than
BiA.
I don't have an opinion about BiA, but I am really getting sick of hearing
about the "outdated graphics" in every single RPG that comes out. All I
can say is, compared to what?
If they would say something like "too bad the combat system in Shadows
over Riva isn't SVGA" or something like that, maybe I could understand a
little better. But my usual response is "Show me one that's better." I
have no idea what they are thinking of -- do they think that RPGs should
look like Tomb Raider?
Anyway, has it occurred to anyone that RPGs take a LONG TIME to put
together? You just can't slap together a great RPG in a couple of months
and be on the bleeding edge of technology. The game engine is just one
part of an RPG. With a game like Quake, you finish the engine (ur... or
maybe you don't even finish the engine*), put it in a box, and it's a
game.
If I wanted to play a game that looked like Tomb Raider.... well, I'm sure
you can fill in the blank.
*(Note for those who may have forgotten: Quake was originally billed as a
hand-to-hand medieval action game involving a guy with a hammer & dragons,
amongst other things. So besides lacking a story or any plot, even the
Quake engine wasn't really finished when it went out the door. Still took
years to develop though... wonder what that would have done to an RPG?)
John Hoffman
In article <33C453...@erols.com>, Clee <jc...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>Boy, you're right. When it comes down to it, graphics do count, even though
> gamers are quite to jump and say
>"It's the gameplay". Kind of like saying, I'm looking for a woman this has a
> great personality, etc. But you
>know that looks do count!
>
Graphics count for what? If this game was released two-three years ago
everyone would be raving about the great graphics. So what changed in the
last 2-3 years?
In this industry there will always be better graphics in the new demos, or the
games coming out in just a few months. Action games will generally always
have the best graphics. Even if an RPG team developed a great engine at the
same time as ID, it would still be months or years before all the RPG stuff
was completed.
I recently downloaded an Atari 800 emulator and downloaded the images for
Alternate Reality. This was a game that I thought was increadable. I thought
the music and graphics were fantastic. Many an RPG fan will say that this was
a totally increadable RPG experience. You know what I just inventoried all
the features in this game and even today you can't find an RPG game that is as
complete in many areas.
We've become so obsessed with the latest pretty graphics that we don't even
look at the gameplay. Do the graphics really make the game? Graphics are
nice and the better they are great, but they are not even close to the top of
the list for what makes a great RPG game. First and formost is the creation
of a gaming world, good dialog, good details, character development, etc.
Before you start trashing the graphics and trying to convince people to not
buy a RPG game which provides a rich RPG experience, think about the message
you're sending the industry. Your message is Graphics, Action first and
formost. There have been some very poor RPG games with nice graphics and most
people get on an talk about the cool graphics. Think of Nemisis or Anvil of
Dawn. Both games had nice graphics but were totally bad as a good RPG
experience. Diablo great graphics and gameplay, but a minimal RPG if at all.
Rave reviews. The message seems to me to be build graphics glitz and it'll
fly. Hell, it'll also take a lot less work.
Don't believe me lets look at what SW manufacturer are preparing;
Battlespire - SVGA great graphics, action RPG.
Redguard - Tomb Raider style game, action Adventure
Descent to Undermountain - Action RPG (I believe it's delayed because the
Graphics became outdated before it was released. Many months of delay)
Return to Krondor - Rumor has it it'll be more adventure than RPG - Lots of
pretty graphics.
Might & Magic VI - Maybe a real RPG!!!
Dark Vengeance - Action (Quake) RPG
Dark Project - will be to system shock as system shock is to Ultima
Final Fantasy - I won't say a thing about this...
Winterstorm Chronicles - Quake RPG
Anachronox - Quake RPG
And the biggest disappointment, Wheel of Time - Quake RPG.
Ultima IX - Maybe an RPG - Origin isn't talking
Baldor's gate - RPG
13 games coming out in the next 12 months of so. I claim to be RPG games. 2
will be for sure, one will probably be, the other 10 will be either quake or
tomb raider style games with RPG elements. You want graphics, it's coming
these games will have tons of graphics. I'll bet not one of them takes the
bashing that BiA or SOR have taken. I'll also bet that not one of them has
half the story of BiA. Of the 2-3 RPG games in the list I wouldn't be
surprised if they get canceled or have very slim stories.
Consider the graphics of these games to be the interface to the story not the
story itself! Consider the message being sent and the impact you're having on
RPG game sales.
John
Antos Dragon
Good points. So the question is, must the graphics be developed AFTER
the core game is finished, or before? You seem to be stating that
graphics for RPG's are done first, once that is done the rest of the
game is created. Anyone want to elaborate on this?
Also for my further opinion on it, see my post about "Graphics vs
Gameplay"....
On Thu, 10 Jul 1997 06:52:35 GMT, jhof...@spamoff.com (John Hoffman)
wrote:
>In article <33C453...@erols.com>, Clee <jc...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>Boy, you're right. When it comes down to it, graphics do count, even though
>> gamers are quite to jump and say
>>"It's the gameplay". Kind of like saying, I'm looking for a woman this has a
>> great personality, etc. But you
>>know that looks do count!
>>
>
>Graphics count for what? If this game was released two-three years ago
>everyone would be raving about the great graphics. So what changed in the
>last 2-3 years?
>
I'm not sure what you mean?
>In this industry there will always be better graphics in the new demos, or the
>games coming out in just a few months. Action games will generally always
>have the best graphics. Even if an RPG team developed a great engine at the
>same time as ID, it would still be months or years before all the RPG stuff
>was completed.
So why doesnt the dev team work on the actual STORY elements and
construct a wireframe graphic engine to make the game playable, then
create the graphic textures at the end of the process before beta
testing?
>I recently downloaded an Atari 800 emulator and downloaded the images for
>Alternate Reality. This was a game that I thought was increadable. I thought
>the music and graphics were fantastic. Many an RPG fan will say that this was
>a totally increadable RPG experience. You know what I just inventoried all
>the features in this game and even today you can't find an RPG game that is as
>complete in many areas.
>
>We've become so obsessed with the latest pretty graphics that we don't even
>look at the gameplay. Do the graphics really make the game? Graphics are
>nice and the better they are great, but they are not even close to the top of
>the list for what makes a great RPG game. First and formost is the creation
>of a gaming world, good dialog, good details, character development, etc.
graphics *dont* make a game in the RPG field but there's no reason why
we cant have BOTH great graphics and game play together in one
package. Im quite frankly comfortable with playing games with older
as well as newer graphics. its the INTERFACE that to me seems more
important...If a game has a bad interface, its so frustrating that you
are struggling to play it no matter how good the graphics are, but
thats' just IMO.
>Before you start trashing the graphics and trying to convince people to not
>buy a RPG game which provides a rich RPG experience, think about the message
>you're sending the industry. Your message is Graphics, Action first and
>formost. There have been some very poor RPG games with nice graphics and most
>people get on an talk about the cool graphics. Think of Nemisis or Anvil of
>Dawn. Both games had nice graphics but were totally bad as a good RPG
>experience. Diablo great graphics and gameplay, but a minimal RPG if at all.
>Rave reviews. The message seems to me to be build graphics glitz and it'll
>fly. Hell, it'll also take a lot less work.
See my post on "graphics vs gameplay." Imagine an Ultima with Diablo
style graphics (but turn based)...and keeping all the qualities that
distinguish an Ultima (well pre 8).
John Hoffman
Must they be developed first? No. But doing the development of the game
without having the 3D engine or a reasonable faxsimily will make development
difficult and require more time overall. It's not impossible you just won't
be able to build a alpha copy of the game with your latest monsters etc and
verify that everything work right and feels right.
No I think that if you're trying to develop something on a tight schedule you
need to be able to have the 3d engine done, then you can add objects &
manipulation into the 3d environment, traps tricks & puzzles, NPCs, Monsters,
and finally a good story. You'll also want to have graphic artists building
objects and image maps. These will need to be tested out to make sure they
look right. No I really don't think you could do this backward. Kinda like
painting a picture where you do the detail work first and then the background.
John
In article <33c69758...@snews2.zippo.com>,
Red Jack
>This statement is a little harsh..."Guardian" has been posting some
>reasonable and moderate comments about this game. I have been somewhat
>more harsh, but since I am still only a little bit into the game I will
>not rip it a new one yet. I do feel that after the wait of what, a
>couple of years (?) since BAK for this sequel that it has surprisingly
>little to offer. Yes, BAK was really popular and unique and a lot of
>fun. But the graphics of BIA are abysmal and the game has been a little
>too "cutesy" so far. I have had a real hard time getting in to it
>because of this. I bought on the first day it was out and expected more
>I guess. I kind of wish that I could get that money back. But I am in
>the mood for a good rpg right now ... (all right ANY rpg...)
Betrayal At Krondor is at least 4 years old, I've been married for
more than 4 years and I played it when I was single. The last good RPG
to be released in my book. I havn't bought Betrayal at Antara yet and
its unlikely I will. I'm glad it is not an adventure game with RPG
elements but I have been WAY too unhappy with RPGs for years now. I'll
probably buy fallout just because I loved wasteland so much, but I am
DONE supporting game companies who think I have the IQ of a rock and
like to play silly kids games. Oh gee, don't make me think! I just
want to sit here clicking my mouse while my wife wipes the drool from
my chin...
If I had my way every game company there is would go bankrupt right
now and we could get some young blood in there with some damn ideas
and a bit of creativity instead of a bunch of hyperactive easily
amused business majors who don't even know the industry, but thats
just my opinion...
Red Jack
>Actually, the upgrade race was in full force back in the early 80's.
>The big difference, was the form of upgrade one had to take. As 8-bit
>games gave way to 16 bit games, the transition was not nearly as smooth
>back then, Instead of upgrading what needed upgrading, what happened
>was worse, orphanization! In other words, you actually had to buy a
>completely new system and loose all the software investment you made
>(new word processer, new paint programs, and other new odds and ends
>which have to bought and learned). With PCs, even after a major
>upgrade, such as a motherboard change, most, if not all the old software
>worked as before (some worked even better, and a few worked too well and
>needed mo'slo to tame it). The upgrade race has always been in force,
>only the process has been made much smoother so you tend to upgrade more
>frequently.
Also in the 80's new installments of a major game series came out
every year or so. Now they come out 4 or 5 years later and seem
pathetically dated. I think that loud mouth guy who says game
companies can't retain programmers may be on to something, I can't
think of any other reason why it should take 4 or 5 years to make a
sequel when it seems like they should be able to get 2 or 3 releases
at least before a new game engine gets obsolete...
Charles M. Kozierok
In article <33c52057.63699625@news>, Red Jack <c...@earth.net> wrote:
} On Wed, 09 Jul 1997 15:43:59 -0700, Carl Beetz
} <be...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
}
} >This statement is a little harsh..."Guardian" has been posting some
} >reasonable and moderate comments about this game. I have been somewhat
} >more harsh, but since I am still only a little bit into the game I will
} >not rip it a new one yet. I do feel that after the wait of what, a
} >couple of years (?) since BAK for this sequel that it has surprisingly
} >little to offer. Yes, BAK was really popular and unique and a lot of
} >fun. But the graphics of BIA are abysmal and the game has been a little
} >too "cutesy" so far. I have had a real hard time getting in to it
} >because of this. I bought on the first day it was out and expected more
} >I guess. I kind of wish that I could get that money back. But I am in
} >the mood for a good rpg right now ... (all right ANY rpg...)
}
} Betrayal At Krondor is at least 4 years old, I've been married for
} more than 4 years and I played it when I was single. The last good RPG
} to be released in my book. I havn't bought Betrayal at Antara yet and
} its unlikely I will.
Why?
Just curious. It seems a lot of people here are mad at Sierra for
not improving BiA enough over BaK. Since I have tried and been disappointed
with games like Daggerfall and Stonekeep, I was *thrilled* to hear that
BiA was much like BaK. In fact, I even considered replaying BaK because
I liked it so much and missed a real RPG. So even if it would have been
better if more had been updated in BiA, isn't playing something similar
to something else that was very good, better than playing nothing at all?
cheers,
-*-
charles
Michael Carmack
Red Jack (c...@earth.net) wrote:
: Also in the 80's new installments of a major game series came out
: every year or so. Now they come out 4 or 5 years later and seem
: pathetically dated. I think that loud mouth guy who says game
: companies can't retain programmers may be on to something, I can't
: think of any other reason why it should take 4 or 5 years to make a
: sequel when it seems like they should be able to get 2 or 3 releases
: at least before a new game engine gets obsolete...
Simple answer: In the 80s, the games they wrote were TINY. We're talking
a couple of 256K disks. Now everyone expects these multimegabyte monster
games that are the on the bleeding edge of technology. If it's not, it
doesn't get bought. But massive games require more time to write and a
LOT more time to debug. If even a few bugs are left in, people whine and
bitch about the "sucky programmers" and how bad the game reeks.
Programmers are in a no-win situation.
--
========================================================================
"Villains, I say to you now: | Mike Carmack
KNOCK OFF ALL THAT EVIL!" | Vulcan Dragon -==(UDIC)==-
S P O O N !!!! - The Tick | mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us
Charles M. Kozierok
In article <5q2tcr$e...@dfw-ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
John Hoffman <jhof...@spamoff.com> wrote:
} No I think that if you're trying to develop something on a tight schedule you
} need to be able to have the 3d engine done, then you can add objects &
} manipulation into the 3d environment, traps tricks & puzzles, NPCs, Monsters,
} and finally a good story.
Some (like me) would say that doing the work in this order is exactly the
problem, and what is resulting in half-hearted RPGs that are all sizzle and
no steak.
cheers,
-*-
charles
John Hoffman
In article <5q3hjo$t...@login.freenet.columbus.oh.us>, mcar...@freenet.columbus.oh.us (Michael Carmack) wrote:
>Red Jack (c...@earth.net) wrote:
>: Also in the 80's new installments of a major game series came out
>: every year or so. Now they come out 4 or 5 years later and seem
>: pathetically dated. I think that loud mouth guy who says game
>: companies can't retain programmers may be on to something, I can't
>: think of any other reason why it should take 4 or 5 years to make a
>: sequel when it seems like they should be able to get 2 or 3 releases
>: at least before a new game engine gets obsolete...
>
>Simple answer: In the 80s, the games they wrote were TINY. We're talking
>a couple of 256K disks. Now everyone expects these multimegabyte monster
>games that are the on the bleeding edge of technology. If it's not, it
>doesn't get bought. But massive games require more time to write and a
>LOT more time to debug. If even a few bugs are left in, people whine and
>bitch about the "sucky programmers" and how bad the game reeks.
>Programmers are in a no-win situation.
More importantly the games in the 80's had primative graphics. At 320x200
with 4 colors you can't do much. Hell I can create nice graphics at that
resolution. So you didn't need fancy graphics artists to make pretty
pictures. You didn't need 3D experts and movie makers to create cool game
intros. You didn't have to build this increadible 3D graphics engine. You
couldn't create stereo 16 bit sound so you didn't need a digital music expert.
In fact, a programer alone could do a game comperable to anything comercially
available.
Even today if you strip out the graphics and sound games aren't that large.
The main executable to BiA is 1.1 MB, Dungeon keeper is 1.3 MB, shadows over
Riva is 2.3 MB, Heros of MM 2 is 1.1. The older Ultima 7 binary is .67 MB,
Serpent Isle is .71MB, Diablo is .82MB, Wow Masters of Magic is .3, Master of
Orion 2 is 1.2MB, civ 2 is 1.7MB, Red Alert is 2.0MB. Wow that was fun.
Does look like they are creaping up in size. Games 4-6 years old are about
half the size of current games.
Anyway back to my main point older games were a lot more focused on the coding
to support the actual mechanics of the game play. Older games were able to be
done with smaller teams. Smaller teams and less activities meant they could
crank out a game a lot quicker.
Led Mirage
In article <33c728a0.65821587@news>, Red Jack <c...@earth.net> wrote:
>Also in the 80's new installments of a major game series came out
>every year or so. Now they come out 4 or 5 years later and seem
>pathetically dated. I think that loud mouth guy who says game
>companies can't retain programmers may be on to something, I can't
>think of any other reason why it should take 4 or 5 years to make a
>sequel when it seems like they should be able to get 2 or 3 releases
>at least before a new game engine gets obsolete...
How about maybe becasue those companies wnat to diversify their product
lines? Also, making new technology DOES take time, especially when new
ideas are harder and harder to come by.
Carlos
Howdy -
Sorry to see all the hostility here. It's OK if you like the game but
why get so bent out of shape by Guardian saying that it is the worst
game ever? Although I have run into plenty of other games that were
obviously much worse.
Anyway, I want to give my opinions in response to the points you state
about the positive qualities of the game. For reference, I am still in
Ch. 1 because I play slowly and because I am trying to find all the
battles and side tasks as I go. The graphics are execreble by today's
standards - but as you say they should not influence the quality of an
RPG. I guess that you are correct but that is only because there has
been so little competitive pressure in the RPG field for a long time.
The combat system seems pretty lame to me. The characteristics and
skills are nice and do influence the game in an appropriate manner.
However, combat becomes:
1- find the magic user and gang up on him and kill him first (use of
male pronouns deliberate since I have seen no female bad persons yet!).
1a- if no mu is available, gang up on a fighter on the edge of the
battle (so it will take the others a turn or two to reach you).
2- after killing the subject of no. 1, repeat the process as necessary.
appendix - rest occasionally to keep from dying - fire bow once or twice
a combat to hit baddies as they flee the map
note - do not worry about the baddies pulling the same tactic on you -
you can always gang up on one of them while they spread themselves
around.
Hopefully combat will liven up as I get more combat spells. At this
point it just seems that they could have automated it.
The character interaction seems to me as if it was written for
pre-teens. No depth or subtlety and a lot of simple speech filled with
platitudes. This does not improve my immersion in the game. The stiff
figures with tilted heads are like relics from a bad cartoon show on
television.
Plot? Cannot say much - I have not found much but I am only in chapter
1. I will comment later about this. How many chapters are there?
Overall? I AM enjoying this so far. I expect that things will liven up
when I get to the town of the first chapter (P_____). If not, the game
will go sit on the shelf with Stonekeep and the other recent rpg
disappointments.
I do not know that Guardian had such a bad post - yes there should have
been more research put into it first. But I have sympathy with the
strong initial negative reaction. I let the game sit for over a week
before returning to it because of the same disappointment.
Carlos
PS - The above comments and opinions represent my personal views only.
They do not reflect the position of my employer.
John Hoffman wrote:
>
> This is the sorriest thing I've seen in a long time. Please go find another
> newsgroup to spend this nonsense in. Judging an RPG game by the quality of
> it's graphics and not looking further is like judging a person by there
> accent.
>
> Betrayal in Antara is one of the best RPG games in a long time!
>
> Graphics are a D or perhaps a C, they aren't really that horrible. ok.
>
> None the less the game features a true computer role playing experience. You
> have a game with a detailed story. The world unveals itself as you explore
> and talk to people. The voice acting may not be top notch quality but it is
> plenty good to draw you into the story and is a huge improvement over just
> reading. One thing about this game, if you plan to just rush through it
> you'll miss quite a bit. I finished chapter 1 but decided to restore to an
> earlier save and do a bit more exploration. Each town seems to reveal new
> quests that directly contribute to expanding the world. As you explore, your
> characters by there individual interaction with NPCs develop more
> personallity. There are interesting things to find, character skills to
> develop. Plenty of NPC interaction.
>
> So for an RPG I evaluate this game highly. Character development is nice.
> Stats are complete and relevent. Magic system is interesting and complete.
> Good NPC interaction with lots of detail. Evolving stories that expand on the
> world. Somewhat nonlinear gameplay. Each chapter has a definite end but
> there are numberous side quests. Combat is turn based with each character
> having different capabilities, weapon attack styles. Plenty detail to the
> combat system. You can view some info on your opponents. You use appropriate
> attacks and magic to succeed. You also have a variety of tools, liquids, and
> potions to drink, use on weapons and armor that affect the combat.
>
> I don't know looks seems to me like this game comes up with pretty high
> rankings on all the things that make a good RPG game. The graphics are but
> one minor component of an RPG. Looks at games like Exile III which has
> received numberous good reviews. The graphics on this game are FAR inferior
> to BiA.
>
> Nope I'd have to say, what a shitty post! Clearly someone who glances at
> something and has the poor judgement to draw conclusions without even looking
> beyond the eye candy. This is exactly why the RPG industry is in such
> trouble. If it doesn't have lots of eye candy people like this jump in a
> smear the game trying to convince people to not by an otherwise excellent
> game.
>
> John
>
> PS what do I like in an RPG game. http://shadow.ix.netcom.com/DefineCRPG.htm
>
> In article <01bc8b24$22766800$bcad61cc@guardian>, "Guardian"
> <guar...@capital.net> wrote:
> >This is , without a DOUBT, the WORST game I've ever played..coming from
> >Sierra that's hard to believe! The graphics suck, they're worse than
> >wolf-3d. It doesn't even support 16bit color, still 256. I thought it
> >would at least use 16bit color. This game needs 3d acceleration more than
> >ANYTHING I've ever seen. Everything is grainy, and very pixellated. Even
> >running at higher than 1024x768, it looks atrocious. I can't even begin to
> >actually play the game itself, as it just LOOKS so disgusting. You'd
> >think, after taking almost a year longer thane expected, Sierra would have
> >utilitzed 16bit color. I'd return this pile, if I didn't get it for free
> >:(
> >What a shitty game, Sierra. And this is just after watching the intro, and
> >seeing what the 'game world' looks like..I'd hate to see what the rest of
> >the game is like, if this is what I think of it now :(
> >
>
John Sun
Hi Carlos,
The strategy you posted below will not work if there are more than 1
magic user or every monster is a fighter/magic user. I have fought a
group of 5 monsters near Imazi where every monster shots poison (range
attack) and hack at the group. I am at the beginning of Ch.2.
Carlos wrote:
>
> Howdy -
Yevgeny Glazamitsky
>Sorry to see all the hostility here. It's OK if you like the game but
>why get so bent out of shape by Guardian saying that it is the worst
>game ever? Although I have run into plenty of other games that were
>obviously much worse.
To have someone offer a well-reasoned opinion which disagrees with yours
is perfectly fine. To have a person rant and rave while not having any
idea what he is talking about is a good reason to become upset. In this
case, Guardian eventually clarified his position and had a reasonable
discussion going - but his first message was nothing but flamebait.
>Anyway, I want to give my opinions in response to the points you state
>about the positive qualities of the game. For reference, I am still in
>Ch. 1 because I play slowly and because I am trying to find all the
>battles and side tasks as I go.
This is exactly the right way to do it.
>The graphics are execreble by today's standards - but as you say they
>should not influence the quality of an RPG. I guess that you are
>correct but that is only because there has been so little competitive
>pressure in the RPG field for a long time.
The graphics are OK. I grew up farther north than most people who are
playing the game and the landscape is pretty close to the way game shows
it - there are very few bright colors and trees are same brownish green
that you see in BIA. There are bad graphics in BIA (e.g, solid forest
bitmaps or standard cave graphics), but most of them are OK.
>The combat system seems pretty lame to me. The characteristics and
>skills are nice and do influence the game in an appropriate manner.
>However, combat becomes:
>1- find the magic user and gang up on him and kill him first (use of
>male pronouns deliberate since I have seen no female bad persons yet!).
>1a- if no mu is available, gang up on a fighter on the edge of the
>battle (so it will take the others a turn or two to reach you).
>2- after killing the subject of no. 1, repeat the process as necessary.
>appendix - rest occasionally to keep from dying - fire bow once or twice
>a combat to hit baddies as they flee the map
>note - do not worry about the baddies pulling the same tactic on you -
>you can always gang up on one of them while they spread themselves
>around.
This is pretty poor combat strategy. First, engaging a magic user may
well be a mistake. In the beginning, you have very few spells or spell
abilities and if Aren sees an opponent mage cast a spell, he might learn
either the spell or spell abilities needed to cast that spell. If you
are close to healing, in reasonably good condition yourself, and you
think that mage's companion are not very tough, do not engage him (BTW,
your opponents are not identified as male or female - you won't
encounter the opponents which are clearly gender-distinguished until
much later).
Anyway, you may or may not want to gang up. First, soon you'll have two
characters go against 4, 5 or even 6 opponents - you just won't be able
to gang up (in fact, they'll be doing it to you). Second, if you want
to kill them for their loot, then ganging up works fine, but sometimes
you want them to run away - it has a demoralizing effect on their
companions. Besides, since in BIA the hurt enemy is a lot less
effective than a healthy one, you might be better off facing two enemies
at 50% of their health than to have one dead and one completely healthy.
That is, unless they have bows which don't seem to suffer much when
fired by a wounded archer - in that case one dead and one healthy might
be better.
>Hopefully combat will liven up as I get more combat spells. At this
>point it just seems that they could have automated it.
You won't get many combat spells if you do what you do now, and if you
think combat is too easy, just wait till you are outnumbered 3 to 1.
>The character interaction seems to me as if it was written for
>pre-teens. No depth or subtlety and a lot of simple speech filled with
>platitudes. This does not improve my immersion in the game. The stiff
>figures with tilted heads are like relics from a bad cartoon show on
>television.
Dialogue is a weak point of the game, but most of the encounters in the
houses are written pretty well.
>Plot? Cannot say much - I have not found much but I am only in chapter
>1. I will comment later about this. How many chapters are there?
I think it is nine.
>Overall? I AM enjoying this so far. I expect that things will liven
>up when I get to the town of the first chapter (P_____). If not, the
>game will go sit on the shelf with Stonekeep and the other recent rpg
>disappointments.
Well, the main plot starts at the end of chapter 3.
>I do not know that Guardian had such a bad post - yes there should have
>been more research put into it first. But I have sympathy with the
>strong initial negative reaction. I let the game sit for over a week
>before returning to it because of the same disappointment.
You didn't act like you jumped to conclusion. He did.
Stuart Park
cyp...@pacbell.net wrote:
> Considering that DOOM has been around for 4 years already, these kinds
> of graphics are unacceptable. Bad graphics doesn't make a bad game,
> but I'd rather pay for good graphics and good story. I'll save my
> money for Fallout or M&M6.
One of my favourite games is Nethack.
No 3D graphics, no SVGA 16-bit colour graphics, no sound, no real-time
multiplayer gameplay.
Just a simple character-graphics turn-based game.. and a game that I
have played frequently for the last 10 years, and will probably continue
to play frequently for the next 10 years.
Any game that boasts 16-bit 3D graphics is a game I will initially
avoid.. probably means that more time was spent on eye-candy than
on gameplay and a decent plot.
--
"If only he used his talent for niceness, instead of evil"
- Get Smart
Stuart Park
E-Mail: stuart @ banana.psd.com.au Melbourne, Australia
Red Jack
On 11 Jul 1997 02:17:49 -0400, lmi...@interlog.com (Led Mirage)
wrote:
>How about maybe becasue those companies wnat to diversify their product
>lines? Also, making new technology DOES take time, especially when new
>ideas are harder and harder to come by.
How about because these companies would rather clone somebody else's
successful product in the hopes of making a little easy money?
What is this crap about making new technology? This is software we are
talking about, not hardware. You seem a bit iffy here. I was talking
about using THE SAME GAME ENGINE to do a sequel! You are talking about
hiring new programmers to work on new projects. You are discussing
what the game companies ARE DOING, I am saying what I would like to
see them do. Maybe you don't recall the days when a successful game
series had new installments once a year but I do and it was very nice.
It is really frustrating to finish a game that you actually enjoyed
and then have to wait 4 or 5 years for a sequel. If book authors did
this nobody would read their stuff.
Case in point: Origin's Wing Commander IV uses a slightly improved
version of the Wing Commander III game engine. Wing Commander IV was
made available a little more than a year after Wing Commander III came
out. Both games were STATE OF THE ART when they shipped even though
they used essentially the same game engine. If Origin can do it then
all the other companies can do it too. Don't give me that "making
technology" crap. Very few companies are working on state of the art
stuff, most of them are busy knocking off the latest big seller. I'd
rather have them investing the same resources into giving me a sequel
to a proven game series than a low-budget game-x clone.
Gussel Timer
Gregg Abbott wrote:
>
> Guardian wrote:
> >
> > This is , without a DOUBT, the WORST game I've ever played..coming from
> > Sierra that's hard to believe! The graphics suck, they're worse than
> > wolf-3d. It doesn't even support 16bit color, still 256. I thought it
> > would at least use 16bit color. This game needs 3d acceleration more than
> > ANYTHING I've ever seen. Everything is grainy, and very pixellated. Even
> > running at higher than 1024x768, it looks atrocious. I can't even begin to
> > actually play the game itself, as it just LOOKS so disgusting. You'd
> > think, after taking almost a year longer thane expected, Sierra would have
> > utilitzed 16bit color. I'd return this pile, if I didn't get it for free
> > :(
> > What a shitty game, Sierra. And this is just after watching the intro, and
> > seeing what the 'game world' looks like..I'd hate to see what the rest of
> > the game is like, if this is what I think of it now :(
>
> graphics, it's the gameplay that counts." Then when a game comes out
> with slightly dated graohics, people cry, "Don't buy this game, the
> graphics suck!" Maybe that's why the market is flooded by lots of
> ganmes which are basically interactive movies ("Aah, awesome graphics
> shot on location"). I've played the Antara demo, and the graphics
> weren't great, but it appeared to have an interesting RPG system behind
> it. How is the game as a whole? So the graphics might be a year or two
> behind the current state of the art, but how is the story, and is the
> RPG system decent?
I don't know who wrote the original message. But that person is an
idiot. Yes, an idiot. Name a 3D perspective RPG that has better 3D
graphics than Betrayal in Antara. There are none. What Shadows Over
Riva? Nope. Anvil of Dawn? Nope. Stonekeep? <derisive laugh>.
And whomever said the game is pixellated...that person is a liar. My
pictures are in crystal sharp SVGA. The only explanation is that the
person has movement set to LOW RESOLUTION mode. This can be easily
changed in the options panel. And what kind of stupid comment is the 3D
acceleration comment. This game doesn't need acceleration! What may be
slowing down gameplay may be the person's slow CD-ROM drive..apparently
as slow as his brain.
And the gameplay is GREAT.
RLCCohen
The more I play this game, the more i enjoy it
and the more I get angry at someone who
slams something because it doesn't
support 3-d graphics cards!! Who cares!!!
Topics: like: DON'T buy betrayal of Antara 3 days
after the game is released is the equivalent
of a tabloid newspaper at the supermarket!!
irresponsible
Archilochos
kyle...@super.NOSPAM.zippo.com (Antos Dragon) wrote:
>Basically even though I dont speak for everyone on this group, it
>seemed RPG gamers became jaded by all the emphasis on great graphics
>that was pervading the scene, and gameplay was turned too much into
>real time...and no one was focusing on the whole. How many RPGs
>with those fancy graphics feature good text NARRATION or Descriptions
>of the environments? I woudlnt mind seeing an excellent 3D rendered
>picture of a Spider God (Bards Tale), as long as the game described
>the encounter outside of just you CLICKING a mouse on the temple and
>it turning into a Spinner...obviously the marriage of text narration
>and splended graphics would REALLY enhance the spooky feeling...and by
>george, throw in a text parser system ala Zork for even more
>interactive possibilities! (even if just making this optional). Dont
>tell me we dont have the technology to improve on what was done 15
>years ago!
I AM jaded. How can I not be? The last GREAT rpg I have played is
Ultima 6. That's why I'm nervously awaiting the arrival of Ultima
9. If Ultima 9 does not reach its expectations, CRPG may die at the
vines. For me at least, U9 is the final test to see if truly great
RPG can be made nowadays.
---------------------------------------------------------------
No man dead
Feels his fellows' praise.
We strive instead,
Alive, for the living's honor,
And the neglected dead
Can neither honor
Nor glory in praise.
-- Poem written by Archilochos, mercenary-soldier-poet of 7th Century B.C. Greece.
Jason Gardner To reply, remove {REMOVE}from my
Natural Born Dragon reply address.
-==(UDIC)==-
John Hoffman
In article <5q8t8r$k...@nnrp2.farm.idt.net>, jasong69{REMOVE}@idt.net wrote:
>kyle...@super.NOSPAM.zippo.com (Antos Dragon) wrote:
>>Basically even though I dont speak for everyone on this group, it
>>seemed RPG gamers became jaded by all the emphasis on great graphics
>>that was pervading the scene, and gameplay was turned too much into
>>real time...and no one was focusing on the whole. How many RPGs
>>with those fancy graphics feature good text NARRATION or Descriptions
>>of the environments? I woudlnt mind seeing an excellent 3D rendered
>>picture of a Spider God (Bards Tale), as long as the game described
>>the encounter outside of just you CLICKING a mouse on the temple and
>>it turning into a Spinner...obviously the marriage of text narration
>>and splended graphics would REALLY enhance the spooky feeling...and by
>>george, throw in a text parser system ala Zork for even more
>>interactive possibilities! (even if just making this optional). Dont
>>tell me we dont have the technology to improve on what was done 15
>>years ago!
>
>I AM jaded. How can I not be? The last GREAT rpg I have played is
>Ultima 6. That's why I'm nervously awaiting the arrival of Ultima
>9. If Ultima 9 does not reach its expectations, CRPG may die at the
>vines. For me at least, U9 is the final test to see if truly great
>RPG can be made nowadays.
>
>
has made a reasonable RPG game. I'm afraid that it is unrealistic to pin all
your hopes on Origin. Frankly I think that Interplay is far more likely to
come out with a good RPG. They have several in the works and seem committed
to getting it right. Fallout looks interesting. Baldor's gate also looks
very promising. Then there is also Descent into Undermountain, a longshot but
who knows. Stack this against Origin's fabled Ultima 9. This game is due out
in mid '98. If origin had done as much programing as talking we'd be playing
this now. When did they first start promising this wonder of a game? It was
about 2-3 months after Ultima 8 came out and quickly went into the tank.
Ultima 8, that was I believe in 93-94 wasn't it... maybe 95. I think this was
the first game CD I tossed into the garbage. Of course, you must remember the
hype for U8. This was going to be the ultimate Ultima. I bought it sight
unseen just because it came from Origin (a synonym with great RPG games).
I really don't think origin is the same company that producted Ultima 6. None
the less I'll hope. I won't buy until I know that it's a true RPG.
John
cboulton
On 10 Jul 1997 18:51:55 GMT, i...@shell.thecia.net (Charles M.
Kozierok) wrote:
>} Betrayal At Krondor is at least 4 years old, I've been married for
>} more than 4 years and I played it when I was single. The last good RPG
>} to be released in my book. I havn't bought Betrayal at Antara yet and
>} its unlikely I will.
>
>Why?
>
>Just curious. It seems a lot of people here are mad at Sierra for
>not improving BiA enough over BaK. Since I have tried and been disappointed
>with games like Daggerfall and Stonekeep, I was *thrilled* to hear that
>BiA was much like BaK. In fact, I even considered replaying BaK because
>I liked it so much and missed a real RPG. So even if it would have been
>better if more had been updated in BiA, isn't playing something similar
>to something else that was very good, better than playing nothing at all?
Well, for a couple of reasons. I basically stopped buying Sierra games
when I heard they decided not to do a BaK sequel because it didn't
sell well enough. I've made a couple of exceptions but I really try to
avoid Sierra games.
Secondly, this BiA is NOT a sequel to Betrayal at Krondor. It is not
scripted by Feist and it is not implemented by ANY of the original
programmers. Basically they brought in a whole new crew and gave them
the BaK source code to work with. That being the case then it is not a
given that the game will be as good or even nearly as good as BaK was.
From what I hear it is not. The dated graphics don't bother me in the
least but I've also heard about problems with inconsistencies and a
childish plot. If this game really is as good as Betrayal at Krondor
was I'd be more than happy to play it, I just don't have a lot of
faith that it will be.
Bill
jasong69{REMOVE}@idt.net (Archilochos) wrote:
>kyle...@super.NOSPAM.zippo.com (Antos Dragon) wrote:
>>Basically even though I dont speak for everyone on this group, it
>>seemed RPG gamers became jaded by all the emphasis on great graphics
>>that was pervading the scene, and gameplay was turned too much into
>>real time...and no one was focusing on the whole. How many RPGs
>>with those fancy graphics feature good text NARRATION or Descriptions
>>of the environments? I woudlnt mind seeing an excellent 3D rendered
>>picture of a Spider God (Bards Tale), as long as the game described
>>the encounter outside of just you CLICKING a mouse on the temple and
>>it turning into a Spinner...obviously the marriage of text narration
>>and splended graphics would REALLY enhance the spooky feeling...and by
>>george, throw in a text parser system ala Zork for even more
>>interactive possibilities! (even if just making this optional). Dont
>>tell me we dont have the technology to improve on what was done 15
>>years ago!
>I AM jaded. How can I not be? The last GREAT rpg I have played is
>Ultima 6. That's why I'm nervously awaiting the arrival of Ultima
>9. If Ultima 9 does not reach its expectations, CRPG may die at the
>vines. For me at least, U9 is the final test to see if truly great
>RPG can be made nowadays.
Thank you very much....Ultima 6 was the last Great rpg I played.
Update U6 with the Diablo engine and I will be more than happy to turn
over the chunk of change it takes to buy a game nowadays.
John Hoffman
In article <8506BE09F51B9B5F.888E60C5...@library-proxy.airnews.net>, out...@ibm.net (Bill) wrote:
>
>Thank you very much....Ultima 6 was the last Great rpg I played.
>Update U6 with the Diablo engine and I will be more than happy to turn
>over the chunk of change it takes to buy a game nowadays.
>
accomplish this. Lets how interplay can pull it off! If they're successfull
next year we may be upto our necks in clone rpg games. Tis a dream I have....
The Little One
> Secondly, this BiA is NOT a sequel to Betrayal at Krondor. It is not
> scripted by Feist
Just thought I'd point out that Feist's novels are full of piss-poor
writing and that the world he 'created' is, in comparison to the ones
others wrote of before him, the equivalent of the grocery-store brand
food versus the real thing.
If your swords & magic fantasies are somehow inauthentic because his
name isn't on them, you live in a world far more fantastic than anything
he he ever came up with.
Feist? Pug him. Makes David Eddings look innovative.
Michael Lewchuk
>Rollo the Talking Dragon wrote:
>> As I always say, how come Role-Players feel that they should NOT expect
>> great graphics in a game? They always say things like"Ultima 5 had crappy
>> Graphics but it is a classic". Yeah but when that game came out it was
>> cutting edge at the time. They were amazing graphics for that time period!
In my opinion Ultima's main contribution to RPGs during the Ultima 4-5 era was
not graphics. The graphics were very cute but if you take a look at Might and
Magic 1, the gold box AD&D series, and so on, they all had half decent graphics
in 2D tiled and 3D 1st person tiled. Origin's main contribution in Ultima 4-5
was the concept of time and its impact on society: businesses close, the idea
of day and night, animated graphics (jugglers, lighthouses with their lights
going in a circle), and of course morality - the idea that just because you
can kill everything and everyone in the Realm, doesn't mean you should.
>> The thing is CRPGs should have the best graphics out of all of the genres
>> of games because almost all CRPGs are trying to simulate a WORLD.
I would assume most flight and space sim programmers would disagree with you
here in implying that CRPGs are the games which most closely want to resemble
"a world". Btw, CRPGs have a bit more leniency in their definition of "world"
than, say, a flight sim does. We know the laws of physics governing
aerodynamics, while a fantasy realm has its own laws, not necessarily having
to do with basic physics.
>> Unfortunatley game companies feel that they can put out sub level Crgps
>> these days becasue they are so few and far between, that we will be anything.
Given most RPGs, I guess you could say you could be anything - elf, dwarf, or
Power Ranger. :) Or did you mean "buy"?
Each company has its own style, and its own way of looking at things. SSI
went with its AD&D games, and did quite well in putting together many more than
reasonable adventures which were quite fun. New World had its Might and Magic
series, which was very good for its time. Sir-Tech has its Wizardry series
which features a lot of interesting quests and puzzles, which will hopefully be
redone in SVGA when (if?) the next Wizardry comes out. Origin, of course,
"creates worlds" - they do their best to give you a sense of "being there".
Bethesda went with the 3D Doom-ish approach to Arena and Daggerfall.
Frankly I haven't had much to complain about in terms of graphics (the graphics
of the Wizardry series were awful since it took them a long time to get out of
that 3D wireframe dungeon rut, but they're improving), but maybe I'm just not
really picky.
>> Maybe that is true. Also, its funny how people complain about
>> having to buy a 3d card for Ultima 9. These same people will bitch if the
>> graphics in that game turn out to crappy. My point is just because most of
>> us enjoy a great story( most important), that doesnt mean that we cant have
>> great graphics as well.
However consider the target market. You're writing a game which doesn't need
a whole lot of CPU horsepower (assume non-realtime). If you limit the graphics
you wind up with a game which can be played on outdated systems, and thus
increase the number of people who can buy your product immensely. If it can
run on Pentium IIs as well as 386 or even 486 systems, you have covered a LOT
of systems, and perhaps many of these people don't need a powerful computer
but wouldn't mind buying computer games for their older systems or their
systems at work.
Billie F. Krieger III Dragon Clan Spy/Trader wrote:
>Lets face it, it is a SIERRA game, I am surprised it ran straight out of
>the box. BTW, is this the Beta release or have they implemented the full
>game on this one. As you can see, I am STILL pissed off at them over Compost.
Don't judge Sierra by one game.
Michael Lewchuk
lew...@cs.UAlberta.CA
Ben
Red Jack wrote:
> Case in point: Origin's Wing Commander IV uses a slightly improved
> version of the Wing Commander III game engine. Wing Commander IV was
> made available a little more than a year after Wing Commander III came
> out. Both games were STATE OF THE ART when they shipped even though
> they used essentially the same game engine. If Origin can do it then
> all the other companies can do it too. Don't give me that "making
> technology" crap. Very few companies are working on state of the art
> stuff, most of them are busy knocking off the latest big seller. I'd
> rather have them investing the same resources into giving me a sequel
> to a proven game series than a low-budget game-x clone.
Yep. And I would add that WC4 was a better game by a good margin than
WC3- the engine was basically taken care of, and the developers focused
their efforts on the story and gameplay. It made for a very effective
game. This approach would be even better suited to a CRPG- recycling a
game engine would help with the already time-heavy development cycles of
these monster games.
-Ben
Red Jack
> Just thought I'd point out that Feist's novels are full of piss-poor
>writing and that the world he 'created' is, in comparison to the ones
>others wrote of before him, the equivalent of the grocery-store brand
>food versus the real thing.
> If your swords & magic fantasies are somehow inauthentic because his
>name isn't on them, you live in a world far more fantastic than anything
>he he ever came up with.
> Feist? Pug him. Makes David Eddings look innovative.
Well, thanks for clueing me in on that. If you read much you should
know that different people like different authors at different times.
And some books by an author will be better than others. I find David
Eddings to be pretty bland but I liked Feists original Riftwar saga.
Currently my favorite fantasy author is Robert Jordan, but I don't
beleive he is directly involved in the Wheel of Time game being
developed right now. I think Feist's contribution to BaK is what made
it a good game. I suppose you could do a better story?
Dave Rekalske
UMMMMM I remember one called Outpost, delivered NOTHING the
game box said it had, the out-roar from all parts of the gaming
world made it clear it was a bomb, and yet to this DAY Sierra
and thier shills claim it was a fine product. Ok ok don't
judge Sierra by two games :)
--
David Rekalske si...@adnc.com
Sir Oscar si...@bsystems.com
It's a damn poor mind that can only
think of one way to spell a word.
-- Andrew Jackson
Dave Rekalske
RLCCohen wrote:
> Topics: like: DON'T buy betrayal of Antara 3 days
> after the game is released is the equivalent
> of a tabloid newspaper at the supermarket!!
>
> irresponsible
Well I guess becuse I think differnetly then
you do then I am irresponsible! I have NEWS
for you, you Sierra shill, I have played the
game thru twice and it STILL STINKS!!!!!
Before you ask me why I played it thru twice
it's cus I had nothing better to do until
UO hit my mail box.
Don M. Bizub
Gussel Timer wrote in article <33C65B...@intergate.bc.ca>...
>Gregg Abbott wrote:
>I don't know who wrote the original message. But that person is an
>idiot. Yes, an idiot. Name a 3D perspective RPG that has better 3D
>graphics than Betrayal in Antara. There are none. What Shadows Over
>Riva? Nope. Anvil of Dawn? Nope. Stonekeep? <derisive laugh>.
I can only agree with you. I don't know what the origional poster was
expecting, but this is the best graphics yet in a RPG. It may not be
Quake, but since when was Quake an RPG
>And whomever said the game is pixellated...that person is a liar. My
>pictures are in crystal sharp SVGA. The only explanation is that the
>person has movement set to LOW RESOLUTION mode. This can be easily
>changed in the options panel. And what kind of stupid comment is the 3D
>acceleration comment. This game doesn't need acceleration! What may be
>slowing down gameplay may be the person's slow CD-ROM drive..apparently
>as slow as his brain.
It is much better looking than Daggerfall and the scenery is much less
repetitive
>And the gameplay is GREAT.
Agreed.
Don Biz
don...@ix.netcom.com
Antos Dragon
Indeed. Look what was done in Ultimas 1-5. Those 5 used basically
the same engine, with refinements and enhancements in each one, before
it was completely revamped in U6. You think they took two years
average per Ultima to work on the graphic engine, or the actual GAME?
Thats why each new Ultima was a must buy to RPG fans.
Of course, the standardized, stable 8 bit environment also helped
spiffy along development.
remove the lo...@my.sig.com and change to kyle...@super.zippo.com
to email me...done to foil the USENET spam-bots...
"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets
the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is
unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By
Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever
is greater, for each violation."
Antos Dragon
OO
++
O ||
O||||[UDIC]=||##########>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>==============-
O ||
++
OO
John Hoffman
In article <33cadfa6...@snews2.zippo.com>, lo...@my.sig wrote:
>
>Indeed. Look what was done in Ultimas 1-5. Those 5 used basically
>the same engine, with refinements and enhancements in each one, before
>it was completely revamped in U6. You think they took two years
>average per Ultima to work on the graphic engine, or the actual GAME?
>Thats why each new Ultima was a must buy to RPG fans.
>
>Of course, the standardized, stable 8 bit environment also helped
>spiffy along development.
>
improve. I think Ultima 2 was the first I played and it had simple tile
graphics. Ultima 3 added better Animation and a larger world. Ultima 4 I
think added some dungeon chages. Somewhere they became 3D. Also the combat
interface changed. Initially it was real plain. As it developed it got
better and included objects you could use tactically. Finally at some point
the combat mode was dropped. So each successive ultima had improved graphics,
a more detailed world, and a stronger story.
Antos Dragon
Alas, I was being too general in my statement :-) What I meant to say
was that the core game engine didnt change as radically with Ultimas
1-5 as Ultimas 6 and 7 changed. Meaning, U1-5 were still tile based,
(Basically the same engine referred to the tile based, direct top down
perspective (3D for non-combat dungeon movement) although the
enhancements and tile graphic improvements were great with each
one...(well, actually, starting with Ultima 4...Ultimas 1-3 (the OLD
Ultima 1, not the 1987 re-release) used *very* similar graphics (at
least in the 8 bit versions), except for the NPC animation, color, and
new objects in Ultima 3, I probably should have made this
clearer)...even U4 had *many* of U3's graphic tiles (with more, varied
animation and newer tilesets...notice the "shopname" big letters were
still there from Ultima 2?), Ultima 5 was probably the most graphicaly
changed compared to the previous ones, while still keeping that
vintage "Ultima" look... U6 was also tile based but took graphics and
item interaction to an entirely new level, and the new 3/4th
(isometric ??) perspective was used, in other words it was largely
overhauled (even Scorpia mentioned U6 was the most changed of a "new"
Ultima (when it came out)), and U7 completely revamped everything,
destroying turn based combat in the process :P
Notice that I'm talking about graphic enhancements here, not gameplay
enhancements, but its clear that the most work went into enhancing the
gameplay on the classics :)
My point to all of this is, as the below poster said, you can create a
great game series by taking a tried and true game engine, modifying
and improving it with each new game of that series without burning a
hole in your deep pockets, releasing a new installment very year or so
for a couple of games, while your efforts are concentrated on making a
good GAME, then revamp the graphics engine for the next saga.
This is what the classic Ultima series did, what Might and magic did
in clusters, what the gold box games did (well, maybe the engine was
pretty much the same for these) etc.....
Im curious how M&M 6 will turn out...supposedly other projects by 3DO
will use that engine, and Baldur's Gate will have a series of
"modules" that will add on to the existing world...this is definitely
a good sign.
On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 06:24:31 GMT, jhof...@spamoff.com (John Hoffman)
wrote:
>>
>Actually these Ultimas weren't the same. In each one the graphics did
>improve. I think Ultima 2 was the first I played and it had simple tile
>graphics. Ultima 3 added better Animation and a larger world. Ultima 4 I
>think added some dungeon chages. Somewhere they became 3D. Also the combat
>interface changed. Initially it was real plain. As it developed it got
>better and included objects you could use tactically. Finally at some point
>the combat mode was dropped. So each successive ultima had improved graphics,
>a more detailed world, and a stronger story.
>
>John
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>John Hoffman mailto:jhof...@ix.netcom.com
>My opinions do not necessarily reflect Netcom's http://shadow.ix.netcom.com/
remove the lo...@my.sig.com and change to kyle...@super.zippo.com
Mark Krischer
Red Jack wrote:
> Currently my favorite fantasy author is Robert Jordan, but I don't
> beleive he is directly involved in the Wheel of Time game being
> developed right now. I think Feist's contribution to BaK is what made
> it a good game. I suppose you could do a better story?
actually, my understanding is that he is "guiding" the direction of the
game in terms of the "world" and storyline.
--mark
Dwayne Carnachan
John Sun <js...@baynetworks.com> wrote:
>Hi Carlos,
>
> The strategy you posted below will not work if there are more than 1
>magic user or every monster is a fighter/magic user. I have fought a
>group of 5 monsters near Imazi where every monster shots poison (range
>attack) and hack at the group. I am at the beginning of Ch.2.
>
>Carlos wrote:
>>
>> Howdy -
>>
>> The combat system seems pretty lame to me. The characteristics and
>> skills are nice and do influence the game in an appropriate manner.
>> However, combat becomes:
>> 1- find the magic user and gang up on him and kill him first (use of
>> male pronouns deliberate since I have seen no female bad persons yet!).
>> 1a- if no mu is available, gang up on a fighter on the edge of the
>> battle (so it will take the others a turn or two to reach you).
>> 2- after killing the subject of no. 1, repeat the process as necessary.
>> appendix - rest occasionally to keep from dying - fire bow once or twice
>> a combat to hit baddies as they flee the map
>> note - do not worry about the baddies pulling the same tactic on you -
>> you can always gang up on one of them while they spread themselves
>> around.
ha! i went into a battle with 4 guys - zapped one with a lightning
bolt and then they all rushed at Aren - so much for not using that
tactic on me...!
====================================================================
Dwayne Carnachan
Social Sciences Computer Support
The University Of Waikato
Egotist, n.:
"A person of low taste, more interested in himself than me."
Gussel Timer
RLCCohen wrote:
>
> The more I play this game, the more i enjoy it
> and the more I get angry at someone who
> slams something because it doesn't
> support 3-d graphics cards!! Who cares!!!
>
> after the game is released is the equivalent
> of a tabloid newspaper at the supermarket!!
>
> irresponsible
Agreed. This is a good game. Not as great as BaK, but still better than
the piece of bugcrap called DAGGERFALL.
Shdwbld
Are you crazy?
Daggerfall is the BEST CRPG there is.(imho)
And with the latest patch(213), It is actually playable.
It is a much larger scope and much more realistic.
I just love that real time combat as well.
CYA
ShadowBlade
--
LEGAL NOTICE: Anyone who sends me unsolicited/commercial e-mail will be
charged a $500 proofreading fee. Consider this official notification.
Failure to abide by this will result in legal action.