Great points from top to bottom, adamantyr. I will say though I have a different perspective on multi-character parties (#1). While computer controlled party members have their place, I had the most fun when I controlled each of my party members 100% on my own, like with Phantasie. I imbued each one with a personality and distinct attributes I could count on, even when the game developer himself hadn't made that a part of the game. While I see the value in having direct control of one character - you'd be playing yourself or some chosen variation thereof - I would hate to see the total loss of being a type of player gamemaster, meaning I'm the "hand of god" to my characters as I try to get them through the computer-controlled gameworld. It's "my guys/gals" versus the world. This ties into #7, where I find myself not wanting to play myself most of the time, but rather play characters created partially in mind and partially in-game. I like the distinction of sexes, particularly when there are character portraits involved. It's also nice when there is nominal trade-off between each sex, meaning if you're going to penalize maximum strength for a woman, you better penalize something for a man (and not necessarily charisma)...
#5 is a pet peeve of mine. It takes a special game for me to put up with eating or sleeping regularly in-game. I'm actually surprised there hasn't been a CRPG game (that I'm aware of (or remember) from a sampling of probably thousands of games I've been exposed to) that has tried for full simulation and required not only a regular eat/sleep cycle, but also bathroom breaks and washing up. I know I also get peeved in games that make excessive use of poisoning, being turned undead, being turned to stone or any number of other gruesome repetitive fates. That and too many fights, especially random encounters, that disrupt the game's flow, are no-no's in my book. Of course I've put up with them and enjoyed the games' otherwise, but the issue is truly one of balance in favor of gameplay and enjoyment, which should almost always win out.
As for #10, I concede that classic-era save systems may have been restrictive due to technical reasons (for instance, only saving in town), so I let those slide for the most part, but these days, yes, there is no excuse for not being able to save anywhere, be it console or computer.
By the way, I think another point should made that it sure would be nice to have an RPG in the classic style that is NOT based on fantasy, sci-fi or a post apocalyptic world (my library of boxed games is FILLED with those types of games). A few games here and there have tried that, like the heavily flawed "Expedition Amazon", but how about something based on the spy genre (inspiration, TSR's Top Secret) or wild west (inspiration, TSR's Boot Hill)?
======================================
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.
(A PC Magazine Top 100 Website)
======================================
Great points from top to bottom, adamantyr. I will say though I have a different perspective on multi-character parties (#1). While computer controlled party members have their place, I had the most fun when I controlled each of my party members 100% on my own, like with Phantasie. I imbued each one with a personality and distinct attributes I could count on, even when the game developer himself hadn't made that a part of the game. While I see the value in having direct control of one character - you'd be playing yourself or some chosen variation thereof - I would hate to see the total loss of being a type of player gamemaster, meaning I'm the "hand of god" to my characters as I try to get them through the computer-controlled gameworld. It's "my guys/gals" versus the world. This ties into #7, where I find myself not wanting to play myself most of the time, but rather play characters created partially in mind and partially in-game. I like the distinction of sexes, particularly when there are character portraits involved. It's also nice when there is nominal trade-off between each sex, meaning if you're going to penalize maximum strength for a woman, you better penalize something for a man (and not necessarily charisma)...
#5 is a pet peeve of mine. It takes a special game for me to put up with eating or sleeping regularly in-game. I'm actually surprised there hasn't been a CRPG game (that I'm aware of (or remember) from a sampling of probably thousands of games I've been exposed to) that has tried for full simulation and required not only a regular eat/sleep cycle, but also bathroom breaks and washing up. I know I also get peeved in games that make excessive use of poisoning, being turned undead, being turned to stone or any number of other gruesome repetitive fates. That and too many fights, especially random encounters, that disrupt the game's flow, are no-no's in my book. Of course I've put up with them and enjoyed the games' otherwise, but the issue is truly one of balance in favor of gameplay and enjoyment, which should almost always win out.
As for #10, I concede that classic-era save systems may have been restrictive due to technical reasons (for instance, only saving in town), so I let those slide for the most part, but these days, yes, there is no excuse for not being able to save anywhere, be it console or computer.
By the way, I think another point should made that it sure would be nice to have an RPG in the classic style that is NOT based on fantasy, sci-fi or a post apocalyptic world (my library of boxed games is FILLED with those types of games). A few games here and there have tried that, like the heavily flawed "Expedition Amazon", but how about something based on the spy genre (inspiration, TSR's Top Secret) or wild west (inspiration, TSR's Boot Hill)?
======================================
Bill Loguidice, Managing Director
Armchair Arcade, Inc.
(A PC Magazine Top 100 Website)
======================================