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...

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.

On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 08:15:32 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 57
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-R0ajgtRR4skbgRlM6m47VF1FO3KbCHog7rB4m5J+TN5zTOGfY3bZjENH5CQyQuikB5GWhsN/f4v8KIN!MfblcYp4m3/VaFw9grvL8CPclU6/9KQPU2ONq5m0TA+aKOyL8+Yw0Rv3aDeawTFAOPIIv4NH
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Xref: unconfigured comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg:148

On Sun, 01 Sep 2024 08:15:32 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>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
>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.

>>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.

I won't argue too much, since I don't consider myself a Wizardry
expert. However, my own personal experience was that the "Wizardry"
games were, from the start, more difficult experiences than their
contemporaries like "Bards Tale", "Might & Magic" and "Ultima". Those
games could be difficult, but "Wizardry" always felt a lot less
I won't argue too much, since I don't consider myself a Wizardry
expert. However, my own personal experience was that the "Wizardry"
games were, from the start, more difficult experiences than their
contemporaries like "Bards Tale", "Might & Magic" and "Ultima". Those
games could be difficult, but "Wizardry" always felt a lot less
forgiving.

[Admittedly, that is probably because most of those games
were developed later than the early Wizardry games and
forgiving.

[Admittedly, that is probably because most of those games
were developed later than the early Wizardry games and
took lessons that were unavailable to Greenberg and
Woodhead because they were pioneering the genre.]

It didn't help that the production values of the Wizardry games lagged
far behind its competitors

[Again, partly to blame on the titles' age, although
even the early Ultima games, which were contemporary
with Wizardry 1-3, looked better. At least in my
opinion.]

Still, lacking nice visuals and sound, the games were forced to rely
entirely on their gameplay, and overall I found the experience a lot
less welcoming to new players. Differences between character classes
weren't always clear, the monsters were lethally hard, the maps
stupidly mazelike and -given the lack of a strong narrative- there
wasn't much reward to finishing the game.

Were the Wizardry games actually /harder/ than "Bards Tale" or "Ultima
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 "Ultima
> 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.
Well Bards Tale was at least unfair (the first title) it let you choose
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!

On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 08:17:20 +0200, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:

>Am 01.09.24 um 20:16 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>> Were the Wizardry games actually/harder/ than "Bards Tale" or "Ultima
>> 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.
>Well Bards Tale was at least unfair (the first title) it let you choose
>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 ;-)

[It's also quite subjective, but I also thought the
visuals of the early "Ultimas" (contemporary with
"Wizardry I-III") looked nicer. Sure, the dungeon
graphics in "Ultima" were _a little_ more primitive,
but the overworld was colorful and detailed.]

Still, Wizardry didn't /always/ have dated graphics. At one point, it
was quite advanced. But it definitely couldn't compete with later
games.

So I don't think Bards Tale won solely on its looks. Certainly they
helped. But the gameplay was solid -and arguably, was more accessible-
and I think that contributed too.

[On a related note: the first game that /really/
impressed me with its visuals? The one that made me
stop and think, 'wow, this game has awesome artwork'?
"Dragon Wars", released in 1989. Until then, all game
visuals were quite workaday in my eyes; they got the
idea across but still felt crude approximations. But
"Dragon Wars" felt special; its visuals made it feel
like a real world. Even though the gameplay really
wasn't anything special, I have such fond memories
of that game.]

A Timeline of some of the games discussed:

Game Initial Release
-------------------------------
Wizardry I (1981)
Ultima I (1981)
Wizardry II (1982)
Ultima II (1982)
Wizardry III (1983)
Ultima III (1983)
Ultima IV (1985)
Bards Tale I (late 1985)
Might & Magic I (1986)
Bards Tale II (1986)
Bards Tale III (1988)
Ultima V (1988)
Might & Magic II(1988)
Dragon's Age (1989)

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.

On 8/31/2024 1:40 PM, Spalls Hurgenson 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.
>
> 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.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On Wed, 4 Sep 2024 09:24:47 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>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.

I didn't have nostalgia for Wizardry either, I missed it the first
time around. I got around to playing the first three (and eventually
the 5th entry) a number of years ago. I enjoyed them a lot but I do
like Might & Magic more. Proving Grounds has a remake available on
Steam.

On Tue, 3 Sep 2024 12:33:49 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:

>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.

I think that's a bit idealistic. I think people very much cared about
the visuals back then, same as today. Certainly by the time of
Wizardry IV, we were well into the console-wars --"Genesis does what
Nintendon't!" and all that-- and that was all about graphics. Sure,
there has always been a contingent that have ardently declared "It's
all about the gameplay" but the public at large has almost always
rewarded the better looking games.

Infocom was incredibly late to the party with adding visuals. By the
time they finally started -with games like "Arthur: Quest for
Excalibur", "Quarterstaff", "Journey, "Shogun" and "Zork Zero" -- the
text-based Interactive Fiction genre was all but dead. There were a
few hold-outs --Legend and Magnetic Scrolls kept at it for a few more
years-- but they'd had graphics in their games from the start.

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.

On 9/4/2024 4:30 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

> 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.
>

Weren't those already done when they were basically bought amd
supplanted by Activision in all but name?

Am 04.09.24 um 16:30 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
> (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.
Cornerstone had a design 10 years ahead of its time basically not really
runnable on computers back then with a decent performance. To my
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!

Am 06.09.24 um 15:38 schrieb Werner P.:
> Am 04.09.24 um 16:30 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>> (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.
> Cornerstone had a design 10 years ahead of its time basically not really
> runnable on computers back then with a decent performance. To my
> 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!
>
here is a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNNRXH_mWn8