I'm tired of pretending these were bad. These were the GOAT.
>playing clunky dos games
>>3839336Not an argument.
>>3839335Some of those games like Eye of the Beholder, I played as a kid. Therefore they're amazing games that are criminally underrated. People need to look past the early 90s graphics and see the amazing experience that's underneath.Some of them I never got to play, like Treasures of the Savage Frontier. Therefore that game sucks, it's too dated to be enjoyed by modern audiences and is best forgotten to time.
>>3839335Pool of Radiance played a very important role in improving combat in computer RPGs, but it's overrated, especially with people glazing it for it's NPC interactions which were rather a spoof - sure, you've had different tones of talk, but I fail to remember how they led to different outcomes. It also had balance issues, like the tedious temple battle with like 2 dozen of orcs - it wasn't fun nor startegic, just a test of patience of failing THAC0 checks. Also the level design were pretty mid apart from the pyramid and the final maze.Wizardry 5 released only a year after, yet it has much more fleshed out NPC interactions and consistently great level design, as well as simpler, but well-balanced combat.
>>3839336
>>3839335Some are very good and also near universally highly regarded, some are very, very bad.
>>3839335>first-person>real-time>party-basedselecting what spells to cast between multiple characters was a nightmare
>>3839440Eye of the Beholder 1 combat was as barebones and simpleton as it could possible be. Or is you talking about some other game from the list?
>>3839440BITCHMADE
>>3839418Combat was more involved and deeper in Pool of Radiance than Wizardry 5, along with a much better story, better interface, better exploration, and better art. There's a reason that Pool of Radiance blew Wiz 5 out of the fucking water on its own platform back then.
>>3839335>Gold BoxThese games were great for the time but the UI and systems are awkward and annoying to use. Hard to recommend today.>Eye of the Beholder 1+2Great real time Dungeon Crawlers even if mapping D&D rules onto the Dungeon Master formula is kind of weird.Never played any of the others.
>>3839420Even the font gets on my nerves.
Blood and Magic is an incredibly good time, even though the micromanagement gets to you. I'm not sure if I've ever beaten it. It got quite hard for twelve year old me in the later campaigns.
>>3839858Thanks for revealing your power level. Eye of the Beholder was the most basic-bitch of all the gold box games, deliberately made so even retards could understand how to play a blobber.
>>3839335I will talk about them with you if you have a topicdon't want to argue good and bad on 4chan
>>3839906>don't want to argue good and bad on 4chanHoly based.
>>3839849>much better story, better interface, better exploration, better artAlmost all wrong. The story in Wizardry 5 was nigh philosophical near the end, with metaphors about good and evil and sly riddle verses. PoR story is just dragon bad, he corrupted people, kill dragon, becum hero, there were zero depth to it. It's as barebones as sword and sorcery story could possibly be. I remember there being some well-respected but corrupted dude who held slaves, and lizardmen racism struggle, but that's about it. Wizardry 5 level design was miles ahead of PoR. The levels were big and witty, an obvious improvement over previous installments. Mayhaps you confuse it with older Wizardry games? As of interface, I find Wiz 5 way simpler and laconic, although both were fine. And about art... you have to be joking, right? Even if we compare dos versions of these games they're about the same level, except that Wiz 5 still had wireframe dungeons (which is no fucking wonder considering how big these dungeons were compared to PoR) and the monster graphics are more raunchy, and it's CGA. It focused on substance, not the looks.Being an official DnD product and combat is the only thing that made PoR stand out among other games. If not for it, you wouldn't be talking about it now.
>>3839335Menzobarranzan was horrible but I agree that many of these are genuinely good especially for the time period
>>3839335What exactly is well made here
>>3839913>The story in Wizardry 5 was nigh philosophical near the endWiz 5 does NOT have a "better" story you pretentious ass-hat clown. It has a thinly veiled sketch of a plot that is directed at giving the player a premise to work with. That's about it. You might come across some good characters here and there, but the actual plot of the story itself is dogshit, like most Wizardry's up until Wizardry 7. PoR has an actual story, that has plot twists, chapter-like structure, and is structured like an actual adventure with a clear progression built into the narrative.>graphicsThey were big fuck-huge wireframe dungeons, per your own admittance you faggot shitlord. Even if we compare it to the SNES version, a whopping 4 years after PoR, PoR still comes out ahead, where you had bit-crushed drawings compared to art that was actually made in-engine with the limitations kept in mind of the hardware, leading to less scraped-up looking sprites.>the levels were big and witty - exploration/level designMmmm, boy oh boy do I love seeing the same four walls over and over again! Meanwhile in PoR you had a variety of screens to look at which kept things varied, while also giving you a greater sense of place. Just out-right objectively better. You had the first person segments, the overland segments, and the tactical overview segments. Not even a fucking comparison. Oh, but sure, you occasionally ventured back to town, but that's about it. Which is also why the "dungeons" were so huge in Wiz 5, that's basically all there fucking was. > and the monster graphics are more raunchy, and it's CGA. It focused on substance, not the looks.I don't think you know what the term "raunchy" means. Also, funny you say it was focused more on "substance" than on "looks". The art in PoR had more substance as well, since you got to look at more than just rough neon pink and teal versions of creatures you encountered, you actually saw story segments and travel.God you are retarded.
>>3839919Compared to other Gold Box titles, yes. As a general CRPG? It was fine. Above serviceable, below good.
>>3839335> I'm tired of pretending these were badDon’t care and you probably never did. You just like buzzwords.>These were the GOAT.No. But I enjoyed them well over a quarter of a century ago.Can’t you just find something interesting about one of them and then post and discuss that in a thread. Why reduce everything to this level of shit?
>>3840034>buzzwordsWouldn't it be a catch phrase?
>>3840010>It has a thinly veiled sketch of a plot that is directed at giving the player a premise to work with. I admit that I might overestimated the general story by cherrypicking the best from memory, like The Loon and elemental riddles. Nevertheless, these small bits have better writing than anything in PoR, and the fact that you still insist that it had decent plot with "twists" is very funny, all of them were as obvious as if it's a children's book except for the human Tyranthraxus not being real one.>like most Wizardry's up until Wizardry 7You never played 6 it seems.>Even if we compare it to the SNES version, a whopping 4 years after PoR, PoR still comes out aheadYou have a vision disability or shit taste. Sole piece of Jun Suemi's art alone destroys every bit of PoR's visuals. And by the way, those were in 1990's PC-98 release as well. Needless to say, visuals is 1990's Amiga version of PoR barely been improved, I know that because it was the one I played.>Mmmm, boy oh boy do I love seeing the same four walls over and over again!Either complete retard or bait, no comments there. All PoR levels save for pyramid, Tyrnathraxus maze, and maybe graveyard were utter brainless garbage, even then they all combined held no candle to Manfretti's theatre. >Just out-right objectively better.Try using your left brain hemisphere instead of right to judge game's level design. This is as retarded as if you'd say that System Shock 2 level design is better than SS1 because it has more decorative assets and smoother details.>occasionallyMore like all the fucking time. This alone proves that your memory about the game is rather muddy and you barely know what you're talking about.>Also, funny you say it was focused more on "substance" than on "looks".I've meant the game itself, not the graphics. And I were right. PoR instead were showing off but underneath the game was shallow.>God you are retarded.No u, nostalgia-blinded fanboy.
>>3839913>The story in Wizardry 5 was nigh philosophical near the end, with metaphors about good and evil and sly riddle verses. PoR story is just dragon badmidwit detected
>>3840010>>3840085Samefag.
>>3839440>how can i navigate this menu? it's so old>builds burj khalifa in fortnite in 3.42 seconds
>>3839335I bet you haven't even played them. Certainly not all of them. You just like looking at the covers and imagining a great game based on them.
>>3839894Eye of the Beholder is not a gold box game at all, stupid fucking zoomer.
>>3839335Dungeon Hack was awesomeI remember Pool of Radiance being awesome too.
