AD&D Best on a Vintage Computer?

[IntvGene]

Having just beaten the classic Dungeon Master a couple of days ago, I realized how much more I enjoyed playing the AD&D games, or even RPGs on the old computers.

I much rather prefer controlling an entire party, and to me the AD&D system works so much better when movement is turn-based and I can actually count the squares to my enemies, calculate range, pull out the graph paper, etc. The old SSI AD&D games were so great, and I just don't get the same feeling from any of the new action ones. Sure, Baldur's Gate and Champions of Norrath are fun games, but I still think AD&D is best played on the older computers. I guess I've played AD&D enough that I don't really need the flashy graphics.. and prefer a game that is more faithful to the rules/system. Nowadays, I just feel that somewhere along the line, we've thrown the baby out with the bath water, and the feel of playing AD&D is gone.

Bioware has come close, and the game that I feel that came closest to restoring the feel was Neverwinter Nights, but you generally controlled a single character there. SW: KOTOR was another decent attempt, allowing you to use the system if you wanted it or not, but I still prefer having total control over my entire party all the time.

Maybe I'm nitpicking here... Maybe I'm living in the past. Anyone else feel the same?

[calthaer]

I don't know...there have just been too many good (and needed) improvements for me to honestly say that I'd prefer those old systems. Automapping and the journal / quest system (which console RPGs *still* haven't caught on to) are two important ones for me. Not that some of those games didn't have automapping, but...

The old hack & slash games just aren't as fun any more for me. If it's just going to be pure hacking, I think at this point in time I prefer to see it, rather than just read piecemeal about it on-screen. Now if there's actually a decent plot going on, then sure - but plot was never a real major thing on a lot of those old dungeon crawls.

[Jorpho]

How are those SSI games, anyway? I picked up the Forgotten Realms Archives for pennies a while back, and it includes every one of them. Does each take many hours to finish?

[IntvGene]

Well, the graphing dungeons and hack-n-slash IS AD&D to me. :)

So, I think that's why I like the old ones so much. The new ones have some great features, and are fun, but they just don't feel like I'm playing AD&D. That's my problem.

BTW, Jorpho.. For the most part, they're reasonably long. If you used a FAQ/walkthrough, you'd speed up the process considerably.

[Ze_ro]

Ahh, I love the old AD&D games... now THOSE were cool RPG's! Frankly, I can't stand all the Japanese RPG's out there... none of them can hold a candle to Curse of the Azure Bonds or Dungeon Master. I'd much rather give the characters their own personality than have to sit through ages of cut scenes worth of "....." spoken by effeminate male characters whose hair was never informed about the laws of gravity.

However, I have to admit that I haven't played many of the newer games. Baldur's Gate looks good, and I'm really intrigued with the storyline of Planescape Torment... and Temple of Elemental Evil looked quite good too... however, my computer runs on vaccuum tubes and is held together with duct tape, so it'll probably be quite some time before I can enjoy those games I'm afraid.

I'd really love to see someone re-write the engine that was used for SSI's games... we have Exult for Ultima 7, XU4 for Ultima 4, ScummVM for the LucasArts games, Sarien and FreeSCI for Sierra, but all we have is Dosbox for the Gold Box adventures. Oh well, I always have the good old C-128 sitting in the basement.

"The Ettins approach"... LOAD... LOAD... LOAD... "A battle begins"

--Zero

[Jorpho]

BTW, Jorpho.. For the most part, they're reasonably long. If you used a FAQ/walkthrough, you'd speed up the process considerably.

"Reasonably"? Does that mean like 20 hours, or 50?

[IntvGene]

BTW, Jorpho.. For the most part, they're reasonably long. If you used a FAQ/walkthrough, you'd speed up the process considerably.

"Reasonably"? Does that mean like 20 hours, or 50?

Heh.. I'm not trying to scare you, but I'd expect around 30 hours at least each. The Pools series is quite long, but also quite satisfying. To play the entire series would be quite an undertaking.

[Great Hierophant]

The first AD&D game I ever played was Eye of the Beholder, then II and finally III. I liked I, loved II, and despised III. Eye seemed to use 2nd Edition rules, as opposed to the 1st edition rules of the Gold Box series. The first person perspective worked well, the dungeons were really creepy but stratified, and the real time combat kept me on my toes. III took forever to load on my 386, abused its digital sound, and was inconsistently difficult.

I stayed away from AD&D for years until I discovered Baldur's Gate. The huge areas to explore, the large number of quests, the detailed NPCs, the variety of party members, the engrossing plot, the good and evil paths you could take, the fine graphics and sound, and the superbly tactical real time combat was a role playing experience yet to be equalled outside other Infinity Engine games. Ditto for Planescape : Torment and Baldur's Gate II. Icewind Dale was very good for a more action oriented RPG, but Icewind Dale II is frustratingly hard.

Neverwinter Nights has been a disappointment. I did not like the fact that parties were taken away from the player. The single player campaign was adequate, but not up to Bioware's usual standard. Too much time was spent breaking into chests, and other annoyances that had been fixed in past games also irked. The player models are fairly primitive and excessively polygonal. The interaction with the enviornment is too limited. The battles are too long and boring at the early and middle levels. New tilesets either require a dedication with 3-D Studio Max or buying expansion packs. The old tilesets get old very quickly. I don't like the feats much.