Classic CRPG fans, take note of this sad day. Andrew C. Greenberg, one
of the two co-developers of "Wizardry", has passed on.
I'll admit it; I never cared much for the Wizardry series. They were
too focused on the mechanical aspects of the RPG genre --the stats,
the loot, the combat-- and not enough on the bits I actually cared
for: story, world-building and characters. They often were ruthlessly
hard too; 'git-gud, scrub' games long before Dark Souls made that a
meme. I played games for entertainment, not challenge.
On Sat, 31 Aug 2024 16:40:31 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson ><spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
Classic CRPG fans, take note of this sad day. Andrew C. Greenberg, one
of the two co-developers of "Wizardry", has passed on.
I'll admit it; I never cared much for the Wizardry series. They were
too focused on the mechanical aspects of the RPG genre --the stats,
the loot, the combat-- and not enough on the bits I actually cared
for: story, world-building and characters. They often were ruthlessly
hard too; 'git-gud, scrub' games long before Dark Souls made that a
meme. I played games for entertainment, not challenge.
The git-gud Wizardry was Wizardry IV. I lost my patience with that one
and gave up. Apparently, everyone else did as well as it was the worst >selling Wizardry title. The earlier ones (and the fifth one) are very
easy by comparison.
I still have yet to play 6-8. I really should get on it.
Were the Wizardry games actually/harder/ than "Bards Tale" or "UltimaWell Bards Tale was at least unfair (the first title) it let you choose
I"? Maybe not. Like I said, I'm not enough of an expert on those games
to really say. But my subjective experience was that they felt a lot
less forgiving.
Am 01.09.24 um 20:16 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
Were the Wizardry games actually/harder/ than "Bards Tale" or "UltimaWell Bards Tale was at least unfair (the first title) it let you choose
I"? Maybe not. Like I said, I'm not enough of an expert on those games
to really say. But my subjective experience was that they felt a lot
less forgiving.
a party without a Bard and then you failed miserably without it in the
last dungeon before finish...
But I think Bards Tale sold well due to its visuals, it simply had the
best visuals for any RPG of its time back then. Wizardry until Bradley
took over the series always had dated graphics. They were fine when part
1 came out, but they kept the same engine without significant visual >improvements until including part 4. Part 5 was a bradley game renamed
to wizardry, Part 6 was the first real wizardry under Bradleys rule!
Btw. hardly an expert myself never played any of the Wizardries, but
thats what I gathered about those games on the net!
Btw Unlike Ultime which was killed by EA, Wizardry still lives, the
series just went to japan over various really obscure paths, and new >Wizardry games are developed there which now slowly make their way back
to the West!
Undeniably "Bards Tale" looked better. But it's not really a fair
comparison; the first three "Wizardry" games all came out _years_
before the first "Bards Tale" was released.
Of course, this defense breaks down with "Wizardry IV", which came out
in 1987 and still looked a lot like its 1981 predecessor ;-)
Classic CRPG fans, take note of this sad day. Andrew C. Greenberg, one
of the two co-developers of "Wizardry", has passed on.
I'll admit it; I never cared much for the Wizardry series. They were
too focused on the mechanical aspects of the RPG genre --the stats,
the loot, the combat-- and not enough on the bits I actually cared
for: story, world-building and characters. They often were ruthlessly
hard too; 'git-gud, scrub' games long before Dark Souls made that a
meme. I played games for entertainment, not challenge.
But that the Wizardry games had a huge influence on the hobby is
undeniable, and the Wizardry games were some of the first complex
CRPGs to have any real success. They helped prove the medium was for
more than just shooting and jumping. And the Wizardry games were
complex, not only with huge (for its time) maps but multiple character classes, dozens of spells and numerous character classes which could radically change how your game played out.
How much of Wizardry was Greenberg's influence over his co-creator's,
Robert Woodhead, is unclear. Greenberg left the PC entertainment
software in the late 80s, shortly after Wizardry IV's release. But he
remains part of the heart and soul of the games; after all, the
big-bad of the series, the Mad Overlord Werdna, is Andrew spelled backwards...
It's odd I never got into the series. I am more of a tactical mechanics >combat lover in RPGs and it seems like it was right up my alley.
Perhaps it was just lack of funds when Wizardry was in it's heyday, for
now I don't have any nostalgia for it, and have mostly moved on from
turn based combat.
On 9/2/2024 7:58 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Undeniably "Bards Tale" looked better. But it's not really a fair
comparison; the first three "Wizardry" games all came out _years_
before the first "Bards Tale" was released.
Of course, this defense breaks down with "Wizardry IV", which came out
in 1987 and still looked a lot like its 1981 predecessor ;-)
There was some idealism in the scene back then. The graphics don't
matter! It's the gameplay that counts!
Of course Wizardry IV was punishing with that as well. As much as some >people might have liked the style of the game and didn't care about the >graphics, most people wouldn't have.
But that was a belief back in the day, just remember how Infocom really >thought they could keep being as successful as they were without
introducing graphics, and then half-heartedly adding static pictures.
Infocom did better with its non-text games ("The Crescent Hawks
Revenge", "Mines of Titan") but it was obviously genres they were not
skilled in, and their games always felt dated in comparison to their contemporaries. That, combined with their lack of focus on games
(Infocom was betting big on creating a relational database) and their
ongoing financial issues (because people didn't want to buy games
without pretty graphics) pretty much sealed their fate.
(Infocom was betting big on creating a relational database) and theirCornerstone had a design 10 years ahead of its time basically not really runnable on computers back then with a decent performance. To my
ongoing financial issues (because people didn't want to buy games
without pretty graphics) pretty much sealed their fate.
Am 04.09.24 um 16:30 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
(Infocom was betting big on creating a relational database) and theirCornerstone had a design 10 years ahead of its time basically not really runnable on computers back then with a decent performance. To my
ongoing financial issues (because people didn't want to buy games
without pretty graphics) pretty much sealed their fate.
knowledge the RDB was basically programmed in a lisp like language just
like their games running on a VM.
This worked for them for the games because they just needed to port the
VM (z-engine) to another platform and could release all their games so
far on it.
But for the database it was a hog, the db was dog slow compared to d-
base which was the standard relational db for the market they were
aiming for, it was dead from the beginning and dragged them down!
They had to sell out after the corner stone fiasco to Activison which
was their end!
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 991 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 144:11:53 |
| Calls: | 12,962 |
| Files: | 186,574 |
| Messages: | 3,266,454 |