Tendo City

Oooooh snap, son! It's time time get down to business and stack up some of the greatest entries the genre has to offer. Hard-hitting titles from some of the biggest names to ever grace the industry. The challenge? 2D WRPGs span more than twenty years of gaming goodness. Do I have what it takes? Time well tell. Time will tell.

1. Planescape: Torment [10]
2. Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn [9.5]
3. Fallout [9.5]
4. Diablo II [9.0]
5. Icewind Dale II [8.5]
6. Fallout 2 [8.5]
7. Icewind Dale [8.0]
8. Arcanum: Of Steamworks & Magick Obscura [8.0]
9. Baldur's Gate [8.0]
10. Diablo [8.0]
11. Shadowrun [8.0]
12. Beyond Divinity [7.5]
13. Shadow Madness [7.5]
14. Septerra Core [7.5]
15. Divine Divinity [7.0]
16. Wizardry VII [7.0]
17. Dark Sun: Wake of the Ravager [7.0]

And...the list seems a bit small. Which is because there are a lot of these games that I just haven't played that much and I'm quite certain that ABF will admonish me for THAT. I'll update when I can.

Quote:And...the list seems a bit small. Which is because there are a lot of these games that I just haven't played that much and I'm quite certain that ABF will admonish me for THAT. I'll update when I can.

Hey, my all-platforms all-tiles "RPGs I've finished" list includes like twenty games, and that's including each GW campaign as a separate game, too... I didn't really play RPGs before Baldur's Gate, you know. And even after that I've still played much more of strategy games than RPGs, Guild Wars aside.


Also,a lot of '70s to early '90s RPGs were first-person, and I don't know that I'd call that 2d... some are hybrid titles, like the Pool of Radiance games, where you wander around in first person, but the battles are top down and strategic, but others are straight first person, like the Wizardry games, etc.

I'm sure there are many examples out there of purely isometric or top-down PC RPGs, but a lot of them would be European games none of us have played. I've heard of some of them, but haven't played most such games...

So yeah, my list wouldn't be much longer than yours, actually, going just by stuff I've actually played.

I mean, I at least wouldn't call first-person dungeon crawlers "2d". You seem to be, by putting Wizardry VII on your list, but, well, they aren't 2d... I would only list topdown, isometric, etc. games as 2d.

1. Planescape: Torment
2. Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn
3. Baldur's Gate
4. Quest for Glory I: So You Want To Be A Hero (such an amazing series, Sierra's best! I prefer the VGA remake to the EGA original.)
4. Quest for Glory IV: Shadows of Darkness (I and IV I consider equally great)

(I won't use numbers below this, but I'm trying to vaguely organize them by how much I liked the games. All of the games on this list here I liked, no bad games here... and the order is definitely very preliminary.)

Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal
Fallout
AD&D: Curse of the Azure Bonds (the only SSI Gold Box game I own; first person exploration, but with top-down combat so I'll put it here)
Icewind Dale II
Quest for Glory III: Wages of War
Quest for Glory II: Trial by Fire (the fanmade graphical interface remake is the way to play it!)
Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura
Diablo II
Castle of the Winds (a classic, in my opinion)
Diablo II: Lord of Destruction
Seal of Evil
Prince of Qin
Sacred
Ultima I
CaveQuest (good game for its time, though, I'm only ranking it low because it's simple and dated... if I also include total playtime and nostalgia, though this definitely should move up at least three places. :))

I also own Fallout 2, but haven't actually played it at all. Similarly I have the Siege of Avalon Anthology, but have barely started it.

I've only played the demo of The Temple of Elemental Evil; I thought about getting it when it came out, but didn't, and haven't played more than the demo. That was enough to know that yes it is the most accurate D&D rules in a game, but evidently like all of Troika's games you need to mod it to fix it to a playable state. The game is on GOG now, so I'm sure I'll get it there eventually.

I'm sure I've played demos of quite a few more, but I don't remember them enough to list them here, and I'd want to play more than a demo to do that anyway. I can remember playing the Blade of Darkness demo; seemed like a quite average Diablo clone, except set in Japan.

Oh, how about games with 3d polygon characters on 2d backdrops? Examples:
Quest for Glory V: Dragon Fire (okay, worst game in the series though)
Silver (decent but unspectacular)


As for first-person RPGs without polygons, again they really are definitely a different category, but if you MUST put them here (it's odd), I've played parts of a few. Again I put them in order of how much I liked them, mostly.
Wizardry VI: Bane of the Cosmic Forge
Ultima Underworld
Wizardry VII: Crusaders of the Dark Savant
Eye of the Beholder (I've only played the Sega CD version, actually, but it's a pretty good port, particularly with a Sega Mouse; also on SNES and PC)
Dragon Wars (very dated, hard to judge impartially, but seems good for its time)
Mazes of Fate (GBA original uses sprites and 2d environments; the DS remake is full 3d, decent and fun but not outstanding game)
Stonekeep (I just don't like this one that much...)

Quote:You seem to be, by putting Wizardry VII on your list, but, well, they aren't 2d...

It has a first-person perspective, but it's just a series of static images, not really a 3D world with polygons [like Betrayal at Krondor].

3d gameplay and 3d graphics are different, but functionally, there's a big difference between a topdown game and a first-person one. A big difference, much more so than between a topdown and an isometric game.

Oh, and do you mean Wizardry VII, or Wizardry Gold? The second is a redone, improved version of the Wizardry VII, and they are different. I only have the original version.

It may have the appearance of 3D, but it's a very 2D game. You could replace the first-person perspective with a 2D map and the game would play out exactly the same. Of course, Betrayal of Krondor would too, but it actually has 3D, polygonal graphics so it's harder to justify putting it on this list. My point is, if you really wanted to, you can make an arguement for putting it on the 2D or the 3D list, but it doesn't REALLY fit either. I'll put it here, for my own facetious reasons.

Anyway, been playing Baldur's Gate II recently [with all official and fan patches in place]. Great game, in pretty much every way. It's still riding Planescape's coattails in this ranking, but not by a whole lot.

Oh yeah, and BG1 is way, way better than an 8.0 game. The only RPGs I have ever played that are better than BG1 are BG2:SoA and Torment, and even then they don't win in every category; overall it's in third, but BG1 has the best exploration component of the three games.

Quote:It may have the appearance of 3D, but it's a very 2D game. You could replace the first-person perspective with a 2D map and the game would play out exactly the same. Of course, Betrayal of Krondor would too, but it actually has 3D, polygonal graphics so it's harder to justify putting it on this list. My point is, if you really wanted to, you can make an arguement for putting it on the 2D or the 3D list, but it doesn't REALLY fit either. I'll put it here, for my own facetious reasons.

Play, say, Phantasy Star I (first person dungeons) and then Phantasy Star II (topdown dungeons) and come back and say that again... no, perspective matters a lot. The dungeon designs aren't too different between the games, but the perspective makes a big difference.

Most of those '80s first-person RPGs didn't have modern conveniences like maps; you had to map the game yourself on graph paper, generally. While some mapping can be required in topdown/isometric games, generally the amount required is much less. You simply have a much better knowledge of where you are. There are a few exceptions to this, such as a dungeon like the Modron Cube in Torment where you have a randomized maze of nearly identical screens to map your way through, but those exceptions are few.

Once first-person RPGs started having good ingame maps this issue became a bit less, but even so it really does make a significant impact on gameplay. Also, many of those games were polygonal games, though I would definitely say that first-person 2d dungeon crawling RPGs are much more similar to first-person 3d dungeon crawling RPGs than they are to, say, other 2d or 3d RPGs.

Of course hybrid titles like the Pools of Radiance (/Curse of the Azure Bonds/etc.) mess things up, but still, I do think the difference matters.

Quote:Oh yeah, and BG1 is way, way better than an 8.0 game.

We've had this discussion before and I don't agree. I found the game overly difficult, a bit too direction-less, and often frustrating.

See here:

Quote:It didn't feel like I was constantly being punished for playing it. All of my characters are level 1 retards which means they constantly die fighting ANYTHING so I have to save all the time and load all the time, I don't have enough money for healing items, I can barely even make it through the newbie dungeon, resting heals like 1 HP for every 8 hours, and the enemies I actually CAN beat give me 1 experience point when I need over a 1000 to get to the next level.

Oh and I just LOVE getting ambushed in THE MIDDLE OF TOWN by someone who completely wipes out my party in a matter of seconds.

http://www.tcforums.com/forums/showthrea...ldurs+gate

All the games I listed above Baldur's Gate 1 weren't as difficult and much more fun to play.

Quote:Most of those '80s first-person RPGs didn't have modern conveniences like maps; you had to map the game yourself on graph paper, generally. While some mapping can be required in topdown/isometric games, generally the amount required is much less. You simply have a much better knowledge of where you are. There are a few exceptions to this, such as a dungeon like the Modron Cube in Torment where you have a randomized maze of nearly identical screens to map your way through, but those exceptions are few.

So, the difference between one and the other is that in one you actually knew where you were going and in the other you felt like your always constantly lost? Fun! But Wizardry 7 stays.

BG2 isn't easier than BG1. It's more linear, but not easier. (Assuming you play on Core Rules and not Normal difficulty in BG2, BG2 Core Rules = BG1 Normal, they made the default difficulty easier in the second game)

But anyway, yeah, as far as difficulty goes, really BG2's main difference is that it doesn't let you wander around, so you can't just go off and accidentally find yourself in a high-level area early in the game, like you can do in BG1. Instead you follow the mostly-linear quest path (Chapter 2 is deceptively open, most of the rest of the game is much more linear than that one, where you have three main paths to play through at once). I missed the openesss of BG1 areas in BG2, it's an amazing game but it rails you a bit too much, I liked BG1's greater exploration a lot.

Because of all the other things BG2 does better like interface, map (notes!), party member interaction, quests, length, etc, BG2 is the better game overall, but BG1's close behind it.

Quote:It didn't feel like I was constantly being punished for playing it. All of my characters are level 1 retards which means they constantly die fighting ANYTHING so I have to save all the time and load all the time, I don't have enough money for healing items, I can barely even make it through the newbie dungeon, resting heals like 1 HP for every 8 hours, and the enemies I actually CAN beat give me 1 experience point when I need over a 1000 to get to the next level.

I would still argue that that's not BG's problem, that's low-level D&D's design. You really overstate BG1's difficulty there, though. It's hard, but not nearly as hard as you say... indeed overall BG2 is probably harder, particularly if we include ToB, which has some really hard boss fights in it. It is hard to decide when both are difficult games, but BGII+ToB is probably harder than BG+ToSC.

Other than that though, I would agree that the rest of those games you rank above BG1 are easier than it, yes. Well, apart from IWD, which I haven't played yet. I've heard it has some hard fights, but we'll see. I've also heard it's pretty short.

Quote:So, the difference between one and the other is that in one you actually knew where you were going and in the other you felt like your always constantly lost? Fun! But Wizardry 7 stays.

What, you don't like mapping games yourself on graph paper? You won't like '80s PC RPGs much then. :)

I have a little bit of tolerance for it, which is why I got as far as I did into Wizardry VI, but not enough to actually play whole games of that kind of thing. It gets very frustrating... but still, I wouldn't say that it automatically makes them bad games. Many of those games are pretty good, they're just very dated and hard to play today.

Quote:It's hard, but not nearly as hard as you say...

Doesn't matter how YOU argue it, it was that hard to ME.

And, no, it's not easier than BG2, because I actually made it through a several hours of BG2 and only get completely wiped out once [in an optional battle].

I still have no idea what BG1 you were playing, because it's definitely not the same game I've played. You act like it's some infamously difficult game or something, which simply is not true... it's not even the hardest Infinity Engine, much less one of the hardest RPGs!

Basically, in combat, Torment is easy, the BG series medium, and the IWD games challenging. In story, it's the reverse -- Torment has the most and best story, the BG games in between, and the IWD games the least. Those are the basic designs of the games. BG is supposed to be middle of the road, with plenty of challenge for those who want to seek it out but also approachable and a good game to learn the 2nd edition D&D rules with. I would say it succeeds at all of those things. Sure it's challenging at times, I agree, but you act like it's so, so much harder than it is...

I mean sure, the first time you play things like the bounty fights can be surprising. Most people die to those bounty hunters the first time they play. I think you're supposed to, so you have to take the game a little more seriously and learn strategy better...

Quote:And, no, it's not easier than BG2, because I actually made it through a several hours of BG2 and only get completely wiped out once [in an optional battle].

The first couple hours of BG2 is chapter 1, a not that hard dungeon. Definitely not representative of the game as a whole... unless again you're confusing linearity with difficulty (thjat is you find it easier when like BG2 it's always obvious where you're supposed to go and you follow a mostly linear path, instead of like BG1 where you sort of know where to go, but can wander around into quite hard areas a lot along the way), or you're playing BG2 at normal but also played BG1 at normal and thus are playing BG2 at a lower difficulty level (considering as I've said they made the default easier -- no permadeath, etc).

Really the only reason I'd say that BG1 is harder than BG2 is because of that lack of linearity. It's easy for me to get off track in BG1, just wandering around the forests and stuff, and forget to get around to actually doing the next part of the story... but in BG2 you're always clearly following a path, so that's almost impossible. That's both something I like and dislike about BG1.

I mean, despite how much I love it, I've never actually finished BG1 while I have finished BG2 (though not ToB, it's extremely hard), and that's mostly because of how often I lose focus and find it hard to get myself to just do the quest path. :)

Come back when you've finished BG2 and are in ToB and have also gotten at least a third or halfway through BG1 and IWD2. Then we can talk. :)

If I was trying to put forward the opinion that BG2 was insanely easy and BG1 was insanely hard, you might have a point here, but that's not what I'm saying.

Also, if you want to talk about this, then let's talk about it. But don't attack my opinions and don't try to force me to justify why I like one game more than another. I just do, that's all there is to it.

Ended up knocking the difficulty down to Easy in BG2. Most battles aren't too difficult, but there are several scattered around that are simply too difficult and too frustrating. I'm playing this game to have fun and soak in the story/characters/writing, not constantly reload because some fight in the middle of a quest keeps getting me killed.

If you don't want challenge, why, exactly, are you playing a D&D RPG?

Seriously, they're not supposed to be easy, and aren't!

I don't mind a challenge, but some of these battles are stupidly hard. Especially the ones where you have to deal with party-wide status effects that make it where they can't do anything or, worse, attack other members of the party.

I'd rather play a game to have fun, soak in the story and characters, explore the world, and all that. BG2 is no different in that regard, I like to play it because this kind of mechanic appeals to me and I want to see where the story goes. Plus, you can't go wrong with David Warner as the bad guy.

D&D is a complex and challenging game and the games reflect that. If you want something simple and brainless go play a JRPG or something. :p

The fact that D&D combat actually requires a significant amount of strategy is one of the best things about it. BG1, BG2, and IWD2 all are very strategically deep games, as are other D&D RPGs like ToEE, NWN2, etc. It's a complicated system and that's why it's so great.

As a strategy game fan (I have always liked strategy games more than RPGs after all), the fact that D&D is so strategically challenging is one of the things I like best about it, really. The Infinity Engine games have been described by some critics as more pausable RTS than RPG; I would disagree with that, they clearly are RPGs, but they definitely are very strategic ones.

Quote:I don't mind a challenge, but some of these battles are stupidly hard. Especially the ones where you have to deal with party-wide status effects that make them not do anything or, worse, attack other members of the party.

Be prepared for it then. There are spells, items, etc. that can block those things, once you know what you're facing your challenge of course is then preparing your party as best you can for the fight. For instance, in BG2 there is a part in the early middle of the game where you fight a lot of vampires. Vampires in 2E D&D can level-drain upon hit, which is a serious pain. So, make sure to have several characters (preferably) with mind-immunity items or spells on during combat...

Similarly, mid to late game BG2 spell battles are EXTREMELY complicated. Winning mage battles in high-level 2E AD&D is a very complex thing because of 2E's spell protections systems. When I say that BG2 is hard, and ToB particularly, this is one reason why. BG1 might have some hard fights, but the game itself is much, MUCH less complex simply because you are much lower levels and thus have much less to have to deal with. The higher your level in D&D, the more and more spells, abilities, and skills you have to think about. Even the hardest BG1 battle is simpler and much less complex than any mid-tier lategame or ToB BG2 battle, simply because of this fact.

That's why I always strongly recommend playing BG1 first -- BG2 can be quite overwhelming, with how much more complex it is and with how many more skills, abilities, and spells you have to manage. It's better to understand 2E staples like THAC0 pretty well before you start trying to learn 2E spell protections battles. :)

Quote:D&D is a complex and challenging game and the games reflect that. If you want something simple and brainless go play a JRPG or something.

Who said I want something simple and brainless? But, I would rather have the simpler combat system of Dragon Age instead. It's not a choice the game gives though, so I'll keep hacking away on Easy mode.

Great Rumbler Wrote:Who said I want something simple and brainless?

You did, when you wrote things like the second and third sentences in that post.

Quote:But, I would rather have the simpler combat system of Dragon Age instead. It's not a choice the game gives though, so I'll keep hacking away on Easy mode.

See what I mean?

(KotOR, Dragon Age (console versions particularly), etc... the biggest problems with those games of course are how seriously strategically lacking they are compared to the Infinity Engine titles. KotOR is so simplistic and bland compared to the IE, it's a gigantic step down... but console gamers like simple stuff that doesn't require you to actually think too much, I guess.)

I mean, you have to think a little in KotOR, particularly in the conversations, but in battle it's fairly straightforward. Very, very different from the brilliant stategic depth of the BG games.

You're confusing "simpler" with "simple".

No, I'm not. I know you, me, and OB1 argued quite a bit about complex vs. easy years ago, with KotOR, and yes, the two things are different... but KotOR is both easier and less complex than BG. Whether someone considers that good or not depends on what they want from a game, but it is absolutely true.

As for BG1 vs. BG2 though, BG2 is more complex than BG1. Is it harder? The later parts of the game and the expansion are, yes. The early part might not be. But it is definitely more complex throughout.


Oh yeah, and if your problem with the BG games is that they are too complex and hard, well, you should be playing NWN2, then. They added a whole lot more automation functions in order to greatly lessen the burden of the system, make things easier to understand for non-D&D players, etc. I find that stuff annoying, and consider the BG games better than NWN2 in part because they put too much focus on making the game simpler and easier to understand and not enough on making an interface or game design (or story, or difficulty) as good or as challenging as the Infinity Engine titles had, but you might like NWN2 more, who knows...

At least the first expansion, Mask of the Betrayer, does have the best story in a D&D game since Torment, hands down. The original NWN2's story is kind of annoying, really, but the first expansion is much better...

NWN2 is less frustrating, yes, but only until I kept coming across a game-breaking bug.

Quote:No, I'm not.

Yes, you are. I'm talking about having a simpler system [ala NWN2 or Dragon Age, or even Planescape: Torment], which you interpret to mean that I want a SIMPLE system. Those games aren't SIMPLE, they're SIMPLER. KotOR is simpler still, and ME2 is simple. However, I don't necessarily consider "simpler=bad", as I know you do, nor do I consider "more complex=amazing", as I also know you do.

I want something more towards the middle. A battle system that doesn't feel like it's playing itself, but also doesn't require me to have a D&D rulebook open on my lap the whole time.

That doesn't, however, mean that I'm going to stop playing BG2.

And my issues with BG1 were more than just difficulty, but you seem to be narrowing in on that and ignoring the others.

Quote:And my issues with BG1 were more than just difficulty, but you seem to be narrowing in on that and ignoring the others.

I think I addressed every one of those points in that other thread, didn't think I needed to do it again... but if you really want me to I will.

We already addressed the difficulty issue as well, but you keep bringing THAT up!

No, I responded and then you didn't reply to any of my points, I think, and just said "well we disagree"... I wouldn't exactly call that anywhere near resolved.

To respond to that again, because I wanted to.

First, though... I have serious doubts that you'd ever like ToEE at all. I mean, it's another levels 1-6 or 7 or so game, so you end the game pretty low level, it's strictly turn-based, so there's no real-time combat and you have to learn even more D&D rules that the IE doesn't make you really learn like the 5-foot step, attacks of opportunity, etc., and more... from what you've been saying, I doubt it sounds like your kind of thing. :)

Quote:It didn't feel like I was constantly being punished for playing it.

It's D&D, whether you find it punishing or fun is a matter of opinion.

Quote:All of my characters are level 1 retards which means they constantly die fighting ANYTHING so I have to save all the time and load all the time,

You're supposed to save often. There's a quicksave button, the game autosaves when you change zones, etc.

I mean, yes, you are low level at the start, and do die easily. That's low level D&D. Some people like that part of the game better, actually, before you have to start dealing with giant stacks of abilities and skills...

Quote:I don't have enough money for healing items,

In D&D you're not supposed to be constantly using healing items. You're supposed, ideally, to get through areas without resting; that's how the pen and paper game would work, anyway. In the computer games it's easier to just rest often. It's effective and doesn't take long.

Quote: I can barely even make it through the newbie dungeon,

Which newbie dungeon, the Nashkell mines? You never answered the question in that other thread. I found that hard too, the first time... fun dungeon though, it's really well designed. :)

Quote:resting heals like 1 HP for every 8 hours,

A slight exaggeration there. And besides, you only have like eight HP.

Quote:and the enemies I actually CAN beat give me 1 experience point when I need over a 1000 to get to the next level.

Baldur's Gate is probably a 50-100 hour game, depending on how much of the content you do (I think you could take longer if you wanted), and you're only level 7 or 8 at the end. You level up slower in BG1 than in almost any other D&D RPG I have played; only BG2 compares, really. That's just the game's design. I happen to like it, one thing I dislike about games like NWN 1 or 2, the IWD games, etc. is that they level you so quickly, it's completely different from the BG1 experience, and as that was the first one I played, it's the one I got used to first... and I think it works well.

Oh, both styles certainly can work, but I do like BG's design.

Quote:Oh and I just LOVE getting ambushed in THE MIDDLE OF TOWN by someone who completely wipes out my party in a matter of seconds.

The bounty hunters trying to kill you were an interesting idea, yes. And yeah, they're tough. I was killed mercilessly the first time I ran into that one in the Nashkel inn... you learn where they are by being killed by them the first time, pretty much, and then you have to figure out a strategy that can beat them. The latter part's the more fun part. :)

Sorry, playing New Vegas right now.

And I'm playing Etrian Odyssey III. Very similar to the first game, but just as good so far. Great game. :) (Why I like this incredibly grinding-heavy series despite generally disliking grind I don't know... I think it has to do with the mapping and exploration elements. :))