How did PCfags handle all the limits of their old games, this coming from someone that grew up with an NES and still thinks the games are good.
I tried to play Pool of Radiance and holy shit, the interface is terrible. You have to press a button to cycle through targets, there's no music and every room looks identical which makes navigation a pain. cRPGs interface are horribly dated.
By playing Darklands instead.
>>3298930
U wot m8
>>3298930
>Criticizing the graphics of a 1992 game
Get out.
>>3298930
>>3298938
since when are graphics from 1992 above criticism? In particular above comparisons against graphics from 1990?
>>3298923
Underage fag detected, someone call a janitor.
>>3298923
>How did PCfags handle all the limits of their old games
Same way you handled the limits of the NES. They were just different limits
>cRPGs interface are horribly dated
It's not a good idea to base such a statement on a single game.
>>3298930
Good bait.
Can't speak for everybody, but I rarely played for anything other than the gameplay or plot, and when an interface is cumbersome you just get used to it after you play long enough.
>>3299320
Same. I've played a lot of games with questionable interfaces/controls over the years and for the most part it's just uncomfortable in the beginning.
>>3299320
>I rarely played for anything other than the gameplay or plot
meaningless filler
>when an interface is cumbersome
then it's a bad interface, period. The job of an interface is to ease the translation of player intentions into player actions. If it gives the player a hard time, then it's doing a bad job. That is a general statement regardless of the age of a game, and I think it's quite important we don't brush off bad interfaces as "well, it's an old game". Shit interfaces are shit, at any time. That a player is able to work around them, does not make them less shit.
> press a button to cycle through targets
Buttons? What is this, a kids game?!
Computer gaming in those days was not for greenhorns.
>>3299329
I don't think that was their point. It's just that a bad interface of the varying elements that can be bad in a game is one of the least damaging because we can adjust to it as opposed to a bad story for example which is irredeemable.
>>3299329
>I think it's quite important we don't brush off bad interfaces as "well, it's an old game"
indeed you are doing valuable work by complaining about trivial problems
how about you just play the NES port ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>3299658
>a bad interface of the varying elements that can be bad in a game is one of the least damaging
the opposite. the single thing connecting the player to the game is one of the most important aspects of it, if not the most important
>a bad story for example which is irredeemable
if the story carries the game, something was broken already
![ff1well[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/4OEseV8.png "ff1well[1].png")
>>3298923
>the interface is terrible
Now you know why, besides having an inferior hardware, NES was such a hit. It delivered quality.
>>3299662
In general the pattern seems to be that console ports of old RPGS have way better controls and alliviate some of the tedious things, such just having a built in map.
The downside is the graphics takes a nose-dive.
>>3298923
CRPGs are fucking horrible.
>>3298923
Literally the first of its type, go try playing Xanadu or something on an msx and see how you like it
>>3298923
One of the best games of all-time. When I was a kid playing through it with a friend, we referenced the AD&D tabletop game modules, rule books, monstrous compendium, etc since the game was true to it. It helped with navigation, battle strategy, and finding secret doors/traps/loot.
If I were to play the goldbox games today, I would definitely use the goldbox companion software:
http://personal.inet.fi/koti/jhirvonen/gbc/
>>3299907
I forgot to add that I plugged my sms gamepad into the commodore 64 and it made some aspects of the game a little more comfy. Still had to use the keyboard of course.
>>3299869
go play candy crush or angry birds
Pool of Radiance would have been ten times better if it weren't some sluggish turn-based / strategy shit. Battles shouldn't take half an hour to resolve, and you'll probably end up swinging for more mages than fighters just so you can nuke your way through random encounters quickly.
Pic related had the right idea.
I played a few of the SSI AD&D games on the C64 back in the day. I don't remember if the slowness never really bothered me or not.
I just checked - I no longer have the boxes, but I have the original disks for Pool of Radiance, Curse of the Azure Bonds and Secret of the Silver Blades. The latter was probably the last C64 game I bought since I got my Amiga 500 in late 1990.
>>3299867
You can't really generalize them. Graphics were a strong point if anything since most old RPGs originally came out on the Apple II and got mainly ported to C64 and IBM CGA/EGA and not more capable platforms such as the Amiga.
Controls are a matter of personal preference. I take keyboard shortcuts over menus.
Wizardry ports are fine aside from NoA censorship that you can simply avoid by playing the Japanese version.
Ultima had some decent ports such as 3 on the NES, 4 on the SMS and 6 on the SNES but the others are downright insultive.
Bard's Tale got dumbed down for the NES port with half of the classes missing.
Might and Magic 1 on the NES went as far as removing the ability to create characters.
The PCE-CD also has fixed characters but at least you get a balanced party to begin with.
Might and Magic 2 on the Megadrive and the European SNES is alright. The Japanese SFC port is beyond odd.
Might and Magic 3 had some really poor choices for the console ports where they copied the mouse based input instead of optimizing for a gamepad.
Hydlide got really shafted for the FC and gets a bad name for the extremely delayed American release.
Hydlide 3 on the MD is fine.
Ys is too simple to have any platform issues. The PCE-CD port is a classic.
>>3299920
Eh, PoR isn't that long. I beat it (PC version) with GoG's default DOSBOX settings and no RNG manipulation, no character modifcation and no GBC in 5 hours and change. I know 4 hours is doable, per a friend.
Yeah, combat in PoR is loooong, but by optimizing where (and when) you fight, you can level up quickly and get access to Stinking Cloud, which is the most broken spell in the game. You can choke and one-shot almost any enemy with it, and it's only a level 2 spell.
I did it with a group of F, F/C, F/M, C/M, M, M, average levels were 4~5. Got Skullcrusher and Dirten just for that little extra muscle but I don't think it was necessary.
>>3299913
>Genesis gamepad
>Commodore 64
You idiot. Don't you know that -5V charge put out by the Start button can cook your CIA chip? Never ever do that unless you mod the controller and disconnect the button.
>>3300126
There is no Start button on a SMS pad.
>>3300126
I also thought I remember reading, but I could be wrong, that the Sega gamepads pull the CIA lines low which is not good for the chip either, but you can ask on Lemon64 or something.
>>3299860
It's fine for you to have these opinions but why would you assume everyone shares them, particularly people playing these games before you were born
80s CRPGs were comparatively painful to play though generally 16-bit machines were a little better due to more RAM/less disk access/hard disks. Trying them on a C64 with near CONSTANT disk access is not something any human being in this day and age could put up with.
>>3298923
>cRPGs interface are horribly dated
What about it is dated, exactly? Most of the time the combat is hundred times better than the mindless, grindy jRPG combat system and the first person view navigation has a lot of charm (also if you are the kind of person who gets lost easily or simply doesn't like the idea of drawing your own map, a lot of them offer automapping).
>>3300381
OP here.
Well I think I mentioned some stuff. You cannot simple use the mouse to click which target you want to attack, nor do you have a simple selection like in a jrpg where you use the dpad. There is a button that cycles between the targets clockwise and another that cycles between it counter clockwise. There can be a dozen targets on screen so this is really tedious.
The real problem with navigation is that everything looks the same. Even with a map it's something you have to constantly refer back to if there is no visual clues about which room you are in other than perhaps it's size and the number of doors. Even early 90s RPG graphics really improved on this stuff.
>>3299329
>meaningless filler
No, it was relevant, graphics and sound were mentioned.
>then it's a bad interface, period.
Nobody is saying otherwise or making excuse for games that have it, but once you adapt you don't notice it and you just get on with the rest of the game.
It's like when somebody has a busted lock on their car door and someone else can't get it to open, and they're just like "You gotta jiggle the thing." like it's the easiest thing in the world rather than a confusing pain in the ass, because they're so used to it they don't even notice it.
>>3300423
>it was relevant
It never is. Nobody plays anything for graphics or sound. They add to the motivation to put up with shit, but that's it.
>once you adapt you don't notice it
you're making excuses. You're dangerously close to confusing complex interfaces with bad ones
>you just get on with the rest of the game
wrong. bad interfaces remind you of their badness constantly, through every single action
>because they're so used to it they don't even notice it
does not change that the lock is busted
>>3301043
you're fucking stupid
Unlimited Adventures is rad. Use it, make games.
>complains about the interface (which isn't that bad, its just designed for use without a mouse)
>not the horrible first person navigation
Ok.
But really, not all games are SSI goldbox games. Assuming you're not a troll, PC gaming was not best on IBM compatibles back then. DOS is the 90s PC gaming platform.
>>3298923
The Goldbox games' interface is actually a lot more accessible than it might feel when you first pick it up. It's aged a ton better than most of its contemporaries.
>>3298928
Sombody has a low battery.
>>3300419
With regards to SSI Gold Box Series...
1) Pool of Radiance was released in 1988. Of course early 90s CRPGs would be more elegant compared to it -- they were released after PoR! For a better comparison of SSI's games versus other 90s CRPGs, try the Krynn series or at least Pools of Darkness. Those were all released in the 91-92 era.
2) Mouse support was added in the later games, although I never used it so I don't know how elegant it was. It was a "new" concept to the genre, however, so it wouldn't surprise me if it was clunky.
3) Even in PoR, combat had an "aim" option which let you choose where to attack or cast a spell. Next/Prev weren't the only options as you seem to suggest.
4) PoR was designed in an era where you usually had 1 or 2 unique wall textures. Wizardry, Bard's Tale 1, Ultima, etc. PoR by contrast had 2-3 distinct wall textures per zone (Slums is grey, cobblestone and brown) and sometimes even multiple door styles too.
>>3301960
Might and Magic 1 could do multiple wall textures such as mountain, water, light forest and dense forest.
Wizardry shouldn't even be mentioned as it only got textured walls in 1991.
>>3300126
>sms
>genesis
wew
>>3298930
PoR has a simpler, more cartoony style, while Darklands looks quite busy and attempts to be "realistic".
Cartoony works pretty well for low resolution graphics. I guess it's a matter of preferences.
>>3298923
>How did PCfags handle all the limits of their old games
They coped with being cucked by the then-superior Amiga hardware. PoR in particular is miles prettier on the Amiga.
The later goldbox games have slightly improved controls. For example you can do melee attacks by giving movement commands into the direction of the enemy which speeds combat up a bit.
>>3301983
Yup, you are correct -- the M&M series has superior graphics and audio when compared to the SSI Gold Box series.
Pool of Radiance's contemporary would be M&M2 (1988), and Pools of Darkness's is M&M3 (1991).
So, putting aside storywriting and other considerations, M&M's advantages were graphics and sound. M&M had a bigger view of your area with better/more intricate graphics. The sound was more advanced and I think it used the mouse earlier than SSI did.
On the other hand, SSI's main advantage is in the tactical combat, which M&M lacked. While tactical combat is (as was mentioned elsewhere) slower, it provided a more intricate style of gameplay, one which fit much more closely with how D&D was played at the time (and still is, to this day).
Both have some advantages and some disadvantages, but both series are still worth playing.
>>3302120
Darklands was still pretty stylized. No one had a face. I still like the art direction. The worst thing is the FPS sucks in battle, while at the same time you can't overclock it because then the mouse and scrolling gets uncontrollable.
>>3301092
>PC gaming was not best on IBM compatibles back then. DOS is the 90s PC gaming platform.
What.
>>3302759
I think they meant to say that DOS games sucked in the 80s. Only in the early 90s, with MCGA/VGA modes, sound cards and sufficient power, did PC/DOS gaming really take off
>>3302762
Also it was an asspull to say DOS was the 90s PC gaming platform since that didn't apply to the second half of the decade.
>>3302762
>Not enjoying glorious EGA Monkey Island with a pc-speaker beep-booping at you.
...
CGA is a hard sell though.
>>3302774
MI did support Adlib though, didn't it?
>>3302773
DOS was useful for gaming well into 1997, and DOS undeniably dominated the decade, even if it did not survive it
>>3302774
I never had to play MI1 with EGA, though with a PC bleeper. SB16 was quite an improvement.
Also, thanks for being a needlessly technically correct shithead, (dis)missing the spirit of what I said, my pointing out that a 1990 DOS game clearly targeting MCGA just happened to also support old video modes for people that couldn't afford the latest shit.
>>3302782
The original 1990 version was EGA/CGA only; it didn't support VGA at all.
>>3302709
>I think it used the mouse earlier than SSI did.
The Mac ports had mouse support but the originals only added it with 3 in 1992 and up to 5 it wasn't really that useful.
I still need to play Goldbox. I heard the FRUA remakes are the best version or would I miss out on anything?
Did the Goldbox games switch from AD&D 1st to 2nd edition?
>>3302794
fair enough, I never had to deal with it. Had the 5 disk-or-so VGA version.Fucking stump joke, I love it
>>3302807
>dad pirates the game
>had installed parklands which was like a 30 disk game
>dad, you gotta go back to work and get the other disks from the guy! It says we're missing disks!
>>3302796
FRUA?
>>3305058
Forgotten Realms Unlimited Adventures. The Construction Kit that lets you build your own Gold Box games.
>>3302796
If memory serves, Goldbox was almost entirely 2nd edition. there are a few oddities here and there. i don't think weapon weights (slowing initiative) are in place, for example. iirc 1st edition strength caps for females remained, and some stats don't work entirely accurately.
str/dex/con are completely by-the-book, but low int doesn't give spell scribing failure, and 19+ int/wis values didn't seem to give proper spell immunities. i'm not sure if charisma does anything in PoR even (maybe it helps with combat initiative?)
>>3301043
>It never is. Nobody plays anything for graphics or sound.
So tell OP for bringing it up, it's the only reason for the response.
>you're making excuses.
Uh
>Nobody is saying otherwise or making excuse for games that have it
Nobody had said a bad interface isn't a bad interface, or not a bad thing.
>wrong. bad interfaces remind you of their badness constantly, through every single action
To me it's no more tedious than typing out this post. I've had a little practice with typing over the years, so it happens quickly and I barely think about it.
I hope for your sake you're just being difficult for shits and giggles. You're far less responsive to input than any ancient PC game.
>>3307537
>tell OP for bringing it up
OP brought up the interface. The rest is you.
>To me it's no more tedious than typing out this post
if you want to be deliberately obtuse, be my guest. Just don't expect me to be engaged.
>>3299631
Yes they were. I played PoR on the C64 when I was six. Though by then I had about three years of using the under my belt as well as plenty of time on the Atari.
I'm much less likely to put up with it these days than I was then. It's no longer novelty and the plot isn't going to be anything but shit, plus D&D is an awful gaming system. As my standards and experience have grown my patience has dwindled. What was once a challenge to experience is now a test in aggravation.
Though as pointed out here >>3301960
It did have an aim function.
I'd verify it but I don't really care, though I do vaguely recall moving a box around to select enemies - albeit almost three decades later I'm a little skeptical of my memory from a time frame largely since forgotten or repressed. Though someone also mentioned FRUA which I also had and that could have also been what I remembered as well since they look similar and I had them both as well as a slew of other SSI games.
>>3298923
The interface might not be great, but the game is fantastic. I'm actually playing it again now, and I'm really enjoying it. The books that accompany the game are really important. The interface is a little clunky at first, but you get used to it really fast. I'd suggest "manual" targeting if you get frustrated with cycling through targets. The graphics were limited, yes, but that is due to space constraints - the game was originally distributed on a handful of 5.25" floppies.
>>3298923
>limits
Yet these "limits" sometimes made the game and its respective menu elements a lot more ergonomic, as opposed to these newfangled RPGs that have dozens of buttons assigned to dozens of convoluted menu screens and character skills.
>>3307272
But Pool of Radiance came out in 1988 while 2nd Edition only came out in 1989.
>>3300093
>Yeah, combat in PoR is loooong
That's pretty much the case in tabletop D&D as well. I played lots of AD&D back in the 80's, and it seems to me this game (and Gold Box in general) is a pretty accurate model.
Of course, there are technical limitations, like how the rooms look very similar, and most of the text is in paragraph booklet. But in the late 80's this game was still very impressive, even on Apple II system (that's where I first experienced it).
For someone looking for a better interface and/or graphics, you can always try the remake of FRUA. Pretty much all the Gold Box scenarios have been translated to FRUA, and so have the original AD&D modules for that matter.
The Amiga port (pic) also had slightly improved graphics/sound and mouse support, but sadly FRUA never never made it there, nor did some of the other later Gold Box games.
>>3301219
Yeah, I prefer those menus to stuff like Omnitrend's interface for their Breach and Paladin series. Those pretty much force you to use the mouse for everything, and for me that's just not comfortable at all. It's too bad because otherwise those are pretty nice games.
To be fair I disliked Pool of Radiance/Curse of the Azure Bonds even when I played them back in the 80s. The battles took waaay too much time processing every single character's turns, and they always threw tons of shit at you. I tried to get through it several times and just gave up each time.
Instead I just put hundreds of hours into the Ultima games instead.
>>3309141
You can set the game speed.
>>3308841
yes, you are correct. if you want, you can call it 1e with a little bit of 2e thrown in. it's a hybrid either way.
thief skill progressions almost certainly progress like 1e. assassin/illusionist are not core classes (like 2e).. but bard isn't either (like 1e). female strength caps remained (1e) but weapons/damage followed 2e's systems more closely (albeit not perfectly again, if memory serves)
PoR was likely even more lightweight than the other games for a few reasons: 1) it's the first time they tried something like this, 2) technical limitations/simple-is-best, and 3) 2e wasn't finalized yet. you can see some of the core mechanics change in CotAB (1989), which is likely due to 2e's release. however, it's never a perfect 2e clone nor is it a perfect 1e clone. it lies somewhere in-between.
>>3299310
I think having limited buttons help older console games be more playable today.
You don't have to usually read a manual because you can try all 8 buttons to see what the do and they games usually have more limited options.
>>3309709
And 50 keys are too much for you?
Usually they're selected for abbreviations or bunch around one spot for quick access. Often the game will indicate what key you pressed so you don't have to guess what it does.
Finally, reading a manual isn't that difficult. Even those flight sims with whole books aren't impossible to get into.
>>3309709
>I think having limited buttons help older console games be more playable today.
and you'd think wrong
>You don't have to usually read a manual
That's more or less the problem. You're limited to basic inputs, or convoluted menus of menus. Any kind of complicated interaction is right out. Elite is a pretty good example, and so is the vast number of sims, RTSes and complex FPSes on k&m systems vs. controller. There is nothing wrong with RTFM. It enables complexity in interaction which can lead to distinctly complex games
>>3311882
They're arguing that old console games are more accessible and easier to pick up and play, not that they're inherently better. Give a random dipshit Famista and they'd be more likely to understand how to play it than they would something like Sensible Soccer.
