Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Turnbased CRPG?

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 3:28:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

I prefer turnbased CRPG.
I know Fallout 1+2 and the Wizardry games.
Are there any other I should play?

I don't play MMORPG and I run WinXP/SP2.

Thanks in advance :-)

More about : turnbased crpg

September 7, 2005 3:28:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

The Baldur's Gate (including expansions and II) and the Icewind Dale
series can be done in a semi-turn-based where the system pauses after
any combination of events to allow you to make decisions. Highly
recommended games. See also Planescape that uses the same game engine.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 3:28:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

LIV wrote:
> I prefer turnbased CRPG.
> I know Fallout 1+2 and the Wizardry games.
> Are there any other I should play?
>
> I don't play MMORPG and I run WinXP/SP2.
>
> Thanks in advance :-)

I don't know if you like combat-heavy games (the Wizardry series is
combat-heavy, the Fallout series, not so much). If you do, check out
The Temple of Elemental Evil. With the official and the fan patch, it's
now very playable (and enjoyable). If the number of battles in the
Wizardry games annoyed you, though, don't bother.

You might also want to look at the Final Fantasy series. I recommend
Final Fantasy 7 if you can stand the dated graphics.

Also, ADOM. It's a fully text-based roguelike. If you can get past
that, though, then it's probably the deepest CRPG in existence (except
for Nethack, which I don't really like, for some reason).

Laszlo
Related resources
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 3:28:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"LIV" <spammers@goto.hell> wrote in message
news:431eb282$0$156$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>I prefer turnbased CRPG.
> I know Fallout 1+2 and the Wizardry games.
> Are there any other I should play?
>
> I don't play MMORPG and I run WinXP/SP2.
>
> Thanks in advance :-)

Jagged Alliance 2
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 3:28:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

LIV wrote:
> I prefer turnbased CRPG.
> I know Fallout 1+2 and the Wizardry games.
> Are there any other I should play?
>
> I don't play MMORPG and I run WinXP/SP2.
>
> Thanks in advance :-)

Try Geneforge:

http://www.spidweb.com
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 4:59:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

mcv wrote:
> chaoslight@gmail.com wrote:
> > LIV wrote:
> >> I prefer turnbased CRPG.
> >> I know Fallout 1+2 and the Wizardry games.
> >> Are there any other I should play?
> >
> > Also, ADOM. It's a fully text-based roguelike. If you can get past
> > that, though, then it's probably the deepest CRPG in existence (except
> > for Nethack, which I don't really like, for some reason).
>
> Except ofcourse that there's no actual roleplay in Adom. It's a
> brilliant single-person tactical game, though.

He said he enjoyed the Wizardry series, which also has no roleplay (by
your definition).

Laszlo
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 5:16:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"He said he enjoyed the Wizardry series, which also has no roleplay (by

your definition)."

No roleplay in the Wizardry series? Maybe I-V can be said not to have
much roleplay but VI-VIII have plenty of roleplay and I don't see a
definition in this thread which would not include that.

Good turn-based crpg's are tough to find. Arcanum, Temple of Elemental
Evil, and Pool of Radiance 2 are all within the last few years but none
were particularly enjoyable to me (ToEE was okay for awhile until I got
bored with it) and I didn't even finish any of them (I finish all games
I enjoy).

The Might & Magic series VI and later is real-time but space bar pauses
at any time so some consider it quasi-turn-based. However, they aren't
good although VII was decent. Might & Magic prior to VI is fully
turn-based but are too old-school (graphics, interface, etc.) for many
people.

Baldur's Gate I and especially II are great games and I highly
recommend them. They are real-time but they are pausable and also you
can set combat to fully turn-based with simply an option setting
(actually there are plenty of auto-pause options). I enjoy turn-based
games more than real time but found that I let them play out in real
time with lots of pausing with the space bar, especially right after a
mage cast a spell and I wanted to cast another. Planescape Torment is
another great game with much more storyline than any other crpg and
less importance of combat; it has the same combat system as Baldur's
Gate.
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 11:34:58 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

chaoslight@gmail.com wrote:
> LIV wrote:
>> I prefer turnbased CRPG.
>> I know Fallout 1+2 and the Wizardry games.
>> Are there any other I should play?
>
> Also, ADOM. It's a fully text-based roguelike. If you can get past
> that, though, then it's probably the deepest CRPG in existence (except
> for Nethack, which I don't really like, for some reason).

Except ofcourse that there's no actual roleplay in Adom. It's a
brilliant single-person tactical game, though.


mcv.
--
"Serenity is a very personal work with political resonance and a
heartfelt message about the human condition and stuff blowing up.
'Cause let's face it, nobody cares about that 'human condition'
stuff... in fact if you notice it, try to keep it to yourself."
-- Joss Whedon on his new film
Anonymous
September 7, 2005 11:51:50 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

CCCP1 wrote:
> "LIV" <spammers@goto.hell> wrote in message
> news:431eb282$0$156$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>
>>I prefer turnbased CRPG.
>>I know Fallout 1+2 and the Wizardry games.
>>Are there any other I should play?
>>
>>I don't play MMORPG and I run WinXP/SP2.
>>
>>Thanks in advance :-)
>
>
> Jagged Alliance 2
>
>
I second that action...
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 12:46:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Bitstring <1126102437.922181.298520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, from
the wonderful person Knight37 <knight37m@gmail.com> said
>
>LIV wrote:
>> I prefer turnbased CRPG.
>> I know Fallout 1+2 and the Wizardry games.
>> Are there any other I should play?
>>
>> I don't play MMORPG and I run WinXP/SP2.
>>
>> Thanks in advance :-)
>
>Try Geneforge:
>
>http://www.spidweb.com

Seconded .. actually there are now three Geneforges to choose from. Also
Netehrgate, and the Three/Four Avernum games. Middling lousy graphics,
but good gameplay. The price is pretty good too, and they're a small
download for the trial versions.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 12:46:27 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

GSV Three Minds in a Can <GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>>Try Geneforge:
>>http://www.spiderwebsoftware.com
>Seconded .. actually there are now three Geneforges to choose from.

Wow! Thanks for the heads-up. I've ordered GF3 now.

--
Lucian
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 3:19:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Tom Meyer" <fake@email.address> wrote in message
news:qxHTe.47808$32.29139@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> CCCP1 wrote:
>> "LIV" <spammers@goto.hell> wrote in message
>> news:431eb282$0$156$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...
>>
>>>I prefer turnbased CRPG.
>>>I know Fallout 1+2 and the Wizardry games.
>>>Are there any other I should play?
>>>
>>>I don't play MMORPG and I run WinXP/SP2.
>>>
>>>Thanks in advance :-)
>>
>>
>> Jagged Alliance 2
> I second that action...

I third it! If you have never played the JA games, and TB combat is your
thing, you will love it.

olaf
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 6:19:08 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

GSV Three Minds in a Can <GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>TB CRPGs rely on player intelligence instead of reaction speed (i.e. the
>only way they can be any challenge at all is if you have to solve
>problems by doing the =right= thing during your turn). That is
>apparently not what the Yoths of today want to major in - the just wanna
>hit the fire button really fast, really often.

That's an unfair characterisation.
For me, a sword-and-sorcery fight is a confused flurry of
swashbuckling moves and dazzling spells. Real-time combat (eg. in BG2
and DS2) captures these things well, and so leads to more convincing
role-playing for me. Turn-based turns it into a thinking game of
chess, quite different from the role I'd expect to be playing.

--
Lucian
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 9:50:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Nostromo wrote:
> Thus spake Michael Vondung <mvondung@gmail.com>, Thu, 8 Sep 2005 10:30:39
> +0200, Anno Domini:
>
> >On 7 Sep 2005 12:59:31 -0700, chaoslight@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> He said he enjoyed the Wizardry series, which also has no roleplay (by
> >> your definition).
> >
> >Technically, there is no roleplaying in *any* single-player CRPG.
> >
> >M.
>
> Roleplaying can all be in the imagination MVD...if you have one - not just
> in interacting with other l33t d00dz ;-p

Have you people not YET realized that arguing about definitions is
completely useless?

I don't share MCV's definition of roleplaying, but I accepted his
definition for the point I was making. The entire point of HAVING
definitions is that people can discuss things and know they're
discussing the same thing. Arguing about definitions is the most
pointless waste of time ever.

Laszlo
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 9:58:52 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

That's sort of my point of view. If I control one character, then I
don't mind real time. But if I control several characters, then I do
want the ability to pause and issue orders, or a turn based approach.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 2:30:39 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 7 Sep 2005 12:59:31 -0700, chaoslight@gmail.com wrote:

> He said he enjoyed the Wizardry series, which also has no roleplay (by
> your definition).

Technically, there is no roleplaying in *any* single-player CRPG.

M.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 3:31:33 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Bitstring <qb00i1971jelge2at4i43l69g734ij0t93@4ax.com>, from the
wonderful person Lucian Wischik <lu.nn@wischik.com> said
>GSV Three Minds in a Can <GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>>TB CRPGs rely on player intelligence instead of reaction speed (i.e. the
>>only way they can be any challenge at all is if you have to solve
>>problems by doing the =right= thing during your turn). That is
>>apparently not what the Yoths of today want to major in - the just wanna
>>hit the fire button really fast, really often.
>
>That's an unfair characterisation.
>For me, a sword-and-sorcery fight is a confused flurry of
>swashbuckling moves and dazzling spells. Real-time combat (eg. in BG2
>and DS2) captures these things well, and so leads to more convincing
>role-playing for me.


>Turn-based turns it into a thinking game of
>chess, quite different from the role I'd expect to be playing.

Which is what I said - nobody wants to have to think anymore...

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 4:50:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

wolfing wrote:
> That's sort of my point of view. If I control one character, then I
> don't mind real time. But if I control several characters, then I do
> want the ability to pause and issue orders, or a turn based approach.

Yeah, but what games exist that have more than one character for you to
control but aren't either turn-based or pause-and-give-order?

Knight37
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 5:43:05 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Thu, 8 Sep 2005 11:31:33 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:

> Which is what I said - nobody wants to have to think anymore...

I believe there are different types of thinking. In realtime combat games
you still need to think about what you are doing, or going to do. In TB
combat, you think on a different level. RT combat includes the element of
speed, which makes it perhaps comparable to blitz chess -- and that is
still a thinking game.

The Black Isle games (BG, IWD) games with RT combat all allowed the player
to pause the action, too, which isn't a bad compromise. I, too, like TB
combat better in tactical games (i.e. if I have to control more than one
character), but there are times when I find RT combat quite appealing. And
let's face it, the best way to train the brain (and keep it trained) is to
often switch between very different things and approaches, like using the
left hand to move the mouse, holding the fork in the right hand, or playing
RT games instead of TB ones! :p 

M.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 6:42:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 02:19:08 -0700, Lucian Wischik <lu.nn@wischik.com>
wrote:

>GSV Three Minds in a Can <GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>>TB CRPGs rely on player intelligence instead of reaction speed (i.e. the
>>only way they can be any challenge at all is if you have to solve
>>problems by doing the =right= thing during your turn). That is
>>apparently not what the Yoths of today want to major in - the just wanna
>>hit the fire button really fast, really often.
>
>That's an unfair characterisation.
>For me, a sword-and-sorcery fight is a confused flurry of
>swashbuckling moves and dazzling spells.

But in a fantasy game you are supposed to be an expert swordsman to
whom a flurry is anything but confusing or a mage who isn't dazzled by
magic since it's long become mundane.

>Real-time combat (eg. in BG2
>and DS2) captures these things well, and so leads to more convincing
>role-playing for me. Turn-based turns it into a thinking game of
>chess, quite different from the role I'd expect to be playing.

The problem is computer AI. When it comes to tactical combat the
only thing a computer has over me is reaction speed. If I have to
control a party, the only way to really control them intelligently is
turn based, so I can use an actual brain for each party member rather
than have a braindead AI try to decide what people do with them when
I'm making the decisions for another character.

The only time fully real time combat works is if there is only one
character to control and if I'm only going to control a single real
time character I may as well go play a first person shooter.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 7:18:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"wolfing" <wolfing1@yahoo.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>That's sort of my point of view. If I control one character, then I
>don't mind real time. But if I control several characters, then I do
>want the ability to pause and issue orders, or a turn based approach.

Or the ability to give _detailed_ orders to the characters.

That's one of the things I liked about Baldur's Gate, that you could
customize the AI scripts for the characters so they would behave in the
default YOU wanted when combat started.

I rarely paused that game because I didn't need to since I had control
of the NPC brains in my party.

There are so many games I WISH I could do this in, from every damn
Mechwarrior game I ever played right up to Guild Wars henchmen that i'm
dealing with now.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 9:36:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

GSV Three Minds in a Can <GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>Lucian Wischik <lu.nn@wischik.com> said
>>swashbuckling moves and dazzling spells. Real-time combat (eg. in BG2
>>and DS2) captures these things well, and so leads to more convincing
>>role-playing for me.
>>Turn-based turns it into a thinking game of
>>chess, quite different from the role I'd expect to be playing.
>
>Which is what I said - nobody wants to have to think anymore...

I don't know about you, but for me role-playing and getting in
character (yes, even if that character is in the middle of an intense
swordfight) does involve a lot of thinking.

--
Lucian
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 9:49:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On that special day, NFLed, (NFLed@aol.com) said...

> The Might & Magic series VI and later is real-time but space bar pauses
> at any time so some consider it quasi-turn-based.

AFAIK it is not Space Bar, but Return.

In MM6 you couldn't move in turn based mode, but were glued to the
place where aou stood. This is why I didn't use it. In MM7 and MM8 you
can walk a distance, though.


Gabriele Neukam

Gabriele.Spamfighter.Neukam@t-online.de


--
Ah, Information. A property, too valuable these days, to give it away,
just so, at no cost.
Anonymous
September 8, 2005 10:22:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
> Bitstring <qb00i1971jelge2at4i43l69g734ij0t93@4ax.com>, from the
> wonderful person Lucian Wischik <lu.nn@wischik.com> said
> >GSV Three Minds in a Can <GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
> >>TB CRPGs rely on player intelligence instead of reaction speed (i.e. the
> >>only way they can be any challenge at all is if you have to solve
> >>problems by doing the =right= thing during your turn). That is
> >>apparently not what the Yoths of today want to major in - the just wanna
> >>hit the fire button really fast, really often.
> >
> >That's an unfair characterisation.
> >For me, a sword-and-sorcery fight is a confused flurry of
> >swashbuckling moves and dazzling spells. Real-time combat (eg. in BG2
> >and DS2) captures these things well, and so leads to more convincing
> >role-playing for me.
>
> >Turn-based turns it into a thinking game of
> >chess, quite different from the role I'd expect to be playing.
>
> Which is what I said - nobody wants to have to think anymore...

Oh?

Are you basing that on anything in particular, or is that just the pat
knee-jerk response we all hear thrice daily?

Let's see. Are Chess or Go, two of the most widely known cerebral
games, waning in popularity? Are they waning in popularity among young
people, perhaps?

Okay, what about, say, Magic: the Gathering? Lots of trading card games
have come and gone; MtG is arguably one of the most complex and
cerebral. Are youngsters playing it less, because they, "don't want to
have to think"?

But wait! Maybe pen-and-paper RPGs have been getting less popular? Or
dumbed down?

Here's a hint: no.

So then could there be another reason for the decline in mainstream
turn-based RPG and strategy game? One to do with, heck, I dunno, market
forces and the ubiquity of ever increasing graphical processing power
indirectly forcing large companies to consolidate their product
palettes and drop games that no longer make good financial sense,
because of drastically steepening risk/reward curves? By jove, that
could be it!

Instead of hanging around Gamespot like a forlorn puppy, take a look at
Sourceforge sometime, or indie game developers. You will find that
there is simply no shortage of turn-based games. There is, in fact, a
vast supply, more than you could reasonably play in a lifetime. And if
you look at download and sales statistics, respectively, you will find
the market for turn-based offerings as large as it ever was, if not
larger.

The reason why big-budget games are no longer turn-based is a complex
one. But it has nothing to do with the pat, self-congratulatory little
answer of "duh, I guess peepul are getting dummer, duh."

I apologize for being harsh. But I have seen this ridiculous old
chestnut far too many times lately. It is time to drop it.

Laszlo
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 12:50:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Knight37" <knight37m@gmail.com> wrote:
>LIV wrote:
>> I prefer turnbased CRPG.
>> I know Fallout 1+2 and the Wizardry games.
>> Are there any other I should play?
>>
>> I don't play MMORPG and I run WinXP/SP2.
>>
>> Thanks in advance :-)
>
>Try Geneforge:
>
>http://www.spidweb.com

I played and loved a bunch of Spiderweb Softward games but I am
embarrased to admit that they all start to feel the same after a
while.

-David
September 9, 2005 1:09:29 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thus spake Michael Vondung <mvondung@gmail.com>, Thu, 8 Sep 2005 10:30:39
+0200, Anno Domini:

>On 7 Sep 2005 12:59:31 -0700, chaoslight@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> He said he enjoyed the Wizardry series, which also has no roleplay (by
>> your definition).
>
>Technically, there is no roleplaying in *any* single-player CRPG.
>
>M.

Roleplaying can all be in the imagination MVD...if you have one - not just
in interacting with other l33t d00dz ;-p

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
September 9, 2005 11:39:49 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thus spake chaoslight@gmail.com, 8 Sep 2005 05:50:48 -0700, Anno Domini:

>
>Nostromo wrote:
>> Thus spake Michael Vondung <mvondung@gmail.com>, Thu, 8 Sep 2005 10:30:39
>> +0200, Anno Domini:
>>
>> >On 7 Sep 2005 12:59:31 -0700, chaoslight@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> He said he enjoyed the Wizardry series, which also has no roleplay (by
>> >> your definition).
>> >
>> >Technically, there is no roleplaying in *any* single-player CRPG.
>> >
>> >M.
>>
>> Roleplaying can all be in the imagination MVD...if you have one - not just
>> in interacting with other l33t d00dz ;-p
>
>Have you people not YET realized that arguing about definitions is
>completely useless?
>
>I don't share MCV's definition of roleplaying, but I accepted his
>definition for the point I was making. The entire point of HAVING
>definitions is that people can discuss things and know they're
>discussing the same thing. Arguing about definitions is the most
>pointless waste of time ever.
>
>Laszlo

Dude, I'm just trolling him - we go way back - ssshhhhhh! ;) 

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
September 9, 2005 11:40:54 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thus spake "Knight37" <knight37m@gmail.com>, 8 Sep 2005 12:50:59 -0700, Anno
Domini:

>
>wolfing wrote:
>> That's sort of my point of view. If I control one character, then I
>> don't mind real time. But if I control several characters, then I do
>> want the ability to pause and issue orders, or a turn based approach.
>
>Yeah, but what games exist that have more than one character for you to
>control but aren't either turn-based or pause-and-give-order?
>
>Knight37

Lots, you just have to control them *one* at a time :) 

Space Hulk was one many years ago which did it in realtime. Did my brain in.

--
A killfile is a friend for life.

Replace 'spamfree' with the other word for 'maze' to reply via email.
Anonymous
September 9, 2005 3:43:07 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Bitstring <1126228947.734552.34890@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, from
the wonderful person chaoslight@gmail.com said
>
>GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>> Bitstring <qb00i1971jelge2at4i43l69g734ij0t93@4ax.com>, from the
>> wonderful person Lucian Wischik <lu.nn@wischik.com> said
>> >GSV Three Minds in a Can <GSV@quik.clara.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>TB CRPGs rely on player intelligence instead of reaction speed (i.e. the
>> >>only way they can be any challenge at all is if you have to solve
>> >>problems by doing the =right= thing during your turn). That is
>> >>apparently not what the Yoths of today want to major in - the just wanna
>> >>hit the fire button really fast, really often.
>> >
>> >That's an unfair characterisation.
>> >For me, a sword-and-sorcery fight is a confused flurry of
>> >swashbuckling moves and dazzling spells. Real-time combat (eg. in BG2
>> >and DS2) captures these things well, and so leads to more convincing
>> >role-playing for me.
>>
>> >Turn-based turns it into a thinking game of
>> >chess, quite different from the role I'd expect to be playing.
>>
>> Which is what I said - nobody wants to have to think anymore...
>
>Oh?
>
>Are you basing that on anything in particular, or is that just the pat
>knee-jerk response we all hear thrice daily?

Personal experience, looking at what sells, looking at what young folks
want to so with their time...

>Let's see. Are Chess or Go, two of the most widely known cerebral
>games, waning in popularity? Are they waning in popularity among young
>people, perhaps?

Yes, actually, based on the number of junior members of the BCF now,
compared to when I was a lad. Go was never as popular, so it's pretty
hard to judge.

<snip>

>Instead of hanging around Gamespot like a forlorn puppy, take a look at
>Sourceforge sometime, or indie game developers.

Pay attention - it was =me= that recommended Spiderweb software. And
have many times. Go look at the beta testers list for their last half
dozen games - see anyone whose .sig you might recognize?

>There is, in fact, a
>vast supply, more than you could reasonably play in a lifetime. And if
>you look at download and sales statistics, respectively, you will find
>the market for turn-based offerings as large as it ever was, if not
>larger.

Hmm, maybe you could name 50 (recent ones) then? Turn based RPGs please.
Well 10 then .. that is where this thread started after all...

>I apologize for being harsh. But I have seen this ridiculous old
>chestnut far too many times lately. It is time to drop it.

It ain't ridiculous - you need to go mix with more young folks and see
where their interest lies. Generalising, I admit, it isn't in the area
of things which require large investments of time, and brain power.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Contact recommends the use of Firefox; SC recommends it at gunpoint.
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 12:35:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 20:50:26 -0700, David Bilek <dtbilek@comcast.net>
wrote:

>"Knight37" <knight37m@gmail.com> wrote:
>>LIV wrote:
>>> I prefer turnbased CRPG.
>>> I know Fallout 1+2 and the Wizardry games.
>>> Are there any other I should play?
>>>
>>> I don't play MMORPG and I run WinXP/SP2.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance :-)
>>
>>Try Geneforge:
>>
>>http://www.spidweb.com
>
>I played and loved a bunch of Spiderweb Softward games but I am
>embarrased to admit that they all start to feel the same after a
>while.
>

I've played Exile II - while it could be a good game, it has a major flaw:
It becomes harder to play once you do a fow rounds of Angband.

After this, I was unable to even play the shareware versions, as the game
strongly feels that it should be based on a keyboard interface.
Anonymous
September 10, 2005 2:22:09 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Knight37 wrote:
> LIV wrote:
>> I prefer turnbased CRPG.
>> I know Fallout 1+2 and the Wizardry games.
>> Are there any other I should play?
>>
>> I don't play MMORPG and I run WinXP/SP2.
>>
>> Thanks in advance :-)
>
> Try Geneforge:
>
> http://www.spidweb.com

Looks very interesting :-)
Anonymous
September 12, 2005 10:50:48 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
> Bitstring <1126228947.734552.34890@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, from
> the wonderful person chaoslight@gmail.com said
> >
> >Instead of hanging around Gamespot like a forlorn puppy, take a look at
> >Sourceforge sometime, or indie game developers.
>
> Pay attention - it was =me= that recommended Spiderweb software. And
> have many times. Go look at the beta testers list for their last half
> dozen games - see anyone whose .sig you might recognize?

Most of my post wasn't directed at you. I was using the generic "you".
Sorry if it seemed otherwise :) 

> >There is, in fact, a
> >vast supply, more than you could reasonably play in a lifetime. And if
> >you look at download and sales statistics, respectively, you will find
> >the market for turn-based offerings as large as it ever was, if not
> >larger.
>
> Hmm, maybe you could name 50 (recent ones) then? Turn based RPGs please.
> Well 10 then .. that is where this thread started after all...

Okay, I would... except I'm too damn lazy to do a search. Are you
saying that if I did a search on Sourceforge, I wouldn't find 10 recent
turn-based RPGs? I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

> >I apologize for being harsh. But I have seen this ridiculous old
> >chestnut far too many times lately. It is time to drop it.
>
> It ain't ridiculous - you need to go mix with more young folks and see
> where their interest lies. Generalising, I admit, it isn't in the area
> of things which require large investments of time, and brain power.

This has always been thus. I don't remember the majority of kids having
been all that brilliant when I was in grade school, either.

And naturally, there were exceptions back then, just as there are
exceptions now. The difference is that video games now cater to the
majority, not just to the "geek" minority as they did 15 years ago.

Laszlo
Anonymous
September 14, 2005 11:22:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

<chaoslight@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126533048.376044.206910@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hmm, maybe you could name 50 (recent ones) then? Turn based RPGs please.
>> Well 10 then .. that is where this thread started after all...
>
> Okay, I would... except I'm too damn lazy to do a search. Are you
> saying that if I did a search on Sourceforge, I wouldn't find 10 recent
> turn-based RPGs? I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

The only recent one I can think of, outside of KOTOR2 which was a port, is
TToEE...and that isnt very recent. As a genre, the turn based CRPG is damn
near dead.

olaf
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 5:53:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Olaf wrote:
> <chaoslight@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1126533048.376044.206910@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Hmm, maybe you could name 50 (recent ones) then? Turn based RPGs please.
> >> Well 10 then .. that is where this thread started after all...
> >
> > Okay, I would... except I'm too damn lazy to do a search. Are you
> > saying that if I did a search on Sourceforge, I wouldn't find 10 recent
> > turn-based RPGs? I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
>
> The only recent one I can think of, outside of KOTOR2 which was a port, is
> TToEE...and that isnt very recent. As a genre, the turn based CRPG is damn
> near dead.

You donĀ§'t know what Sourceforge is, do you? :) 

Laszlo
Anonymous
September 15, 2005 3:44:55 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly "Olaf" <olaf73GETRIDOFTHIS@swbellDOT.net> Spake Unto All:

>The only recent one I can think of, outside of KOTOR2 which was a port, is
>TToEE...and that isnt very recent. As a genre, the turn based CRPG is damn
>near dead.

Not least considering that KOTOR2 was pseudo-turn-based (pausable
continuous action).

And to be honest that suits me fine. I'd rather see rpg's moving
towards systems similar to those of squad-based tactical shooters than
linger with turn based. After all, turn-based exists only because it's
hard for humans to resolve real-time combat on a tabletop.

--
"Forgive Russia. Ignore Germany. Punish France."
-- Condoleezza Rice, at the time National Security Adviser, on how to deal
with european opposition to the war in Iraq. 2003.
Anonymous
September 17, 2005 11:44:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Mean_Chlorine" <mike_noren2002@NOSPAMyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jvcii1lle3u69d1bqppksmofj6tod6fsa5@4ax.com...
> Thusly "Olaf" <olaf73GETRIDOFTHIS@swbellDOT.net> Spake Unto All:
>
>>The only recent one I can think of, outside of KOTOR2 which was a port, is
>>TToEE...and that isnt very recent. As a genre, the turn based CRPG is
>>damn
>>near dead.
>
> Not least considering that KOTOR2 was pseudo-turn-based (pausable
> continuous action).
>
> And to be honest that suits me fine. I'd rather see rpg's moving
> towards systems similar to those of squad-based tactical shooters than
> linger with turn based. After all, turn-based exists only because it's
> hard for humans to resolve real-time combat on a tabletop.

While that's true of tabletops, the reason people play on tabletops is
because is convenience. If you wanted to, you could recreate various battles
in such in real time. Or play FPSs (ie, which is pretty much what paintball
is).

As someone who is simply not very good at a mouse, I like turn based games
because I simply can't play real time ones very well. As turn based games
get pushed out of the market, I'm getting pushed out of gaming.
September 18, 2005 3:14:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Jeremy Reaban wrote:

> While that's true of tabletops, the reason people play on tabletops is
> because is convenience. If you wanted to, you could recreate various battles
> in such in real time. Or play FPSs (ie, which is pretty much what paintball
> is).
>
> As someone who is simply not very good at a mouse, I like turn based games
> because I simply can't play real time ones very well. As turn based games
> get pushed out of the market, I'm getting pushed out of gaming.

I prefer turn-based RPGs because I prefer strategy to chaos. I can play (and
enjoy) a single character real-time RPG, but multi-character real-time battles
are too messy for me. Some games (like Tales of Symphonia) have semi-decent
control settings for the AI characters, but they are still much dumber than I
would like. This has excluded many console RPGs from my experience, like the
X-men game, which I otherwise would have bought long ago. I've tried several of
them, but have now given up on them. If I read that a new RPG has RT combat,
I'll give it a pass.
!