Maybe there are rules against this. Maybe it's been done before, or there are threads like this on the forums. Maybe you've already heard of all of these. If so, I apologize, but, if I help anyone discover some great retrogaming blogs, it's cool with me.

First off, I want to talk about Chrontendo. Holy shit. Chrontendo: http://chrontendo.blogspot.com/
If you consider yourself a big fan of the famicom/NES, stop what you're doing. Go watch a bunch of Chrontendo.
For the uninitiated, Chrontendo is a "chronogaming" blog (perhaps the most successful), which aims to play through every famicom/NES game ever made. Every. Single. One.
Every single Japanese pachinko game. Every platformer. Every Dragon Quest-clone. Every shitty mish-mash of 2d platforming and RPG mechanics. And it's wonderful.
The blog itself is really just an addendum to what really counts: the video series. He has already made 43 ~hour long videos discussing every single famicom/NES release from 1983 through March of 1989. Of course, he still has a long ways to go, but, already, it's a stunning achievement. Not only is it an incredibly informative series, but it's entertaining. Dr. Sparkle (as he calls himself) is funny without being distracting, and manages to combine dry humor, documentary-style narration, and obscure pop culture references in a way that just -works-. Every game gets at least a few minutes of coverage (with the exception of some of the aforementioned pachinko games and a few other meaningless releases), but big releases tend to get quite a bit more attention. In fact, his coverage of major releases tends to be comparable to what you'd find from most decent articles that just focus on these games. The fact that they're couched in the greater series and contextualized really just adds heaps of interesting information on top of everything else.
In addition, there's quite a lot of "bonus content." He includes large, in-depth specials on the history of adventure games, arcade games, PC games, and more. He also has chronogaming projects going for the Turbografx 16/PC Engine (Chronturbo) and the Sega Master System (Chronsega). It's thought that he'll add the Genesis to the list in the near future, although that has not been confirmed. In any case, if you enjoy any of these systems or retrogaming in general, check this website out. Crème de la crème.

Second, Hardcore Gaming 101: http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/
Unlike Chrontendo (and a few other sites I'll talk about), this is not a chronogaming blog. Basically, it's a retrogaming website that contains in-depth articles on lots of retro games and series. And.. when I say lots.. I mean it: http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/alpha.htm
Don't care for my (relatively inept and shallow) summary of Langrisser? Here's four pages of in-depth information (probably the most in a competently arranged, accessible format in English on the entire internet): http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/langrisser/langrisser.htm
Always wondered what was up with the Ghosts'n'Goblins series? Here is 6 pages of in-depth discussion: http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/gng/gng.htm
Ever curious what fighting games were like before Street Fighter II? http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/fighters/fighters.htm - Enjoy. By the by, there are 31 (!!) games covered here.
I mean, sure, Wikipedia is great, but, for the games covered, this is goes much, much deeper than Wikipedia.

Third, CRPG Addict: http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/
Do you like computer/western* RPGs? You should definitely check CRPG Addict out. Like Chrontendo, this is a chronogaming project, but genre specific (RPG) and for the PC rather than the famicom/NES. Also unlike Chrontendo, the CRPG Addict attempts to play each and every covered game through to fruition. He also avoids reading FAQs or walkthroughs and tries to figure them out the way a young'un in the 80's would've had to. He also follows pretty strict rules (especially regarding saving and system abuse), and he writes several in-depth blog posts detailing his progress and thoughts. In the end, he reviews the game and places it in CRPG history. Cool stuff.
Already, he has (pretty much) fought his way up to 1989, which is damned impressive. True, despite his intentions, he hasn't beaten quite -every- game, but he really puts up a herculean effort even when he fails. In any case, it's an incredibly impressive project, but, beyond that, you can learn more about CRPG history through his blog than through just about any other source. Highly highly recommended.

The CRPG Addict has been so successful that he has spawned a number of followers. Probably the best of these is the Adventure Gamer's blog: http://advgamer.blogspot.com/. He follows pretty much the same rules and standards that the CRPG Addict follows, although with PC adventure games rather than RPGs. Despite starting far later, he has already made it to 1988, although a lot of the difference is due to the relative ease of games in the two genres. Absolutely nothing faced by the Adventure Gamer compares with, say, Rogue. Still, he's quite active, and his posts are entertaining. If you like adventure games, check it out. There are other good CRPG Addict followers as well. However, the Adventure Gamer is probably the closest in terms of quality and quantity.

There are also a number of sites that follow the AVGN in terms of approach, but do so with a different set of games. Of particular note are the Clan of the Gray Wolf (http://www.clanofthegraywolf.com/), which focuses on 16-bit games, especially RPG's; Pat the NES Punk (http://thepunkeffect.com/), which is perhaps the closest to the AVGN in terms of style and approach; and Turboviews (http://buccisarcade.com/turboviews/), which tends to have a bit more documentary-style narration. Spoony of the Spoony Experiment also does some absolutely great game reviews, although I'm guessing most of you have heard of him.


Another interesting blog is Brad Hates Games: http://bradhatesgames.wordpress.com/. Brad Hates Games sort of merges the tendencies of the AVGN-style sites (which tend to focus more on humor) and chronogaming sites (which tend to be encyclopedic in their approach and coverage) without really being of either type. The main "series" running at Brad Hates Games is entitled "Revoking the Seal of Quality." Basically, the writers decided that most games on the Genesis did not actually deserve the "Seal of Quality," and they make light-hearted, humorous posts where they "revoke" the seal from various games. Not all games have their seal revoked, however. 50 Genesis games were allowed to keep their seal, and the site had a long March Madness-style tournament revealing the top 50 games on the system. Following this, they wrote longer, in-depth entries on each of these 50 games, in order. Considering this has been going on for about four years, there's actually quite a lot of content to take in here. They've also recently expanded the revocations to the SNES and the Dreamcast. In the last couple weeks, they've also started a similar countdown for Mega Man robot masters. They also have some random posts with a bit of meatier content. For example, they interviewed one of the creators of 'Rings of Power,' while doing their top 50 review. Overall, it's a site that has a lot of content, is genuinely funny, and also gives a lot of information to those who love retro games.

I'll stop there. Hopefully, some of you will enjoy these sites.


*I prefer the terms "western" or WRPGs and "Japanese" or JRPGs, but that's a whole debate onto itself.

I know there aren't many PC gamers on Dtoid, but I figured I'd add my thoughts on this game anyway. Let's see how it goes.

If you aren't aware, Warlock: Master of the Arcane (simply Warlock from here on) is a 4x game that borrows heavily from Civilization 5. The 4x genre (explore, expand, exploit, exterminate) is basically how people refer to Civ-clones. Arguably, all four of the x's would also fit into an RTS game, and, indeed, the Sins of a Solar Empire series -does- combine RTS and 4x. In any case, Warlock is a game like Civilization and Master of Magic, where you start with one city and try to expand your control using technology (magic, in this case), military power, and economic growth. Also, like those games, this is Turn-Based Strategy. Go elsewhere, if that's a turn-off.

More specifically, as noted above, Warlock takes a lot of inspiration from Civilization 5. Like Civ 5, it uses a hexagonal map. Also like Civ 5, it uses the "one-unit-per-tile" approach to combat. A lot of the interface and controls are ripped straight from Civ 5. It also feels like a Civ 5 mod at times, as the inspiration is really quite obvious.

However, this being based on fantasy rather than history, Warlock also takes quite a bit of inspiration from Master of Magic. For those who are unaware, Master of Magic is a fantasy TBS 4x game from 1994 made by the same people that made Master of Orion. While, on the surface, Master of Magic looked like a Civilization ripoff, it actually did quite a bit to change up the emerging 4x genre: 1. It replaced science with magic, 2. It added significant role-playing elements, including heroes with equipment, levels, and skills, 3. It added portals that go to a second world, 4. New (typical fantasy) races were introduced into the game, with different units, strengths, and weaknesses, 5. It added an tactical mode, where you actually fought the battles initiated on the strategic map. Master of Magic was a huge game for the genre, and it had a rather large impact on the fantasy 4x sub-genre. Most of these additional features (portals, tactical combat, spells instead of science, RPG elements, more races) would be seen in its various followers: Heroes of Might and Magic, Disciples, Age of Wonders, and Elemental.

Warlock steps into this timeline by marrying the two divergent trends in 4x gaming. From Civ 5, it takes the interface, the combat system, and the general flow and look of the game. From Master of Magic, it takes additional races (undead and monsters are added to humans), portals to other worlds, RPG elements, and the general fantasy setting. However, despite the prevalence of borrowing, Warlock ends up feeling rather singular. The game comes across as far more about combat and exploration than, say, Civ 5, and less about RPG elements and tactical combat than Master of Magic and its ilk.

This all boils down to an interesting truth about Warlock: it's basically a 4x-lite game. For all the borrowed elements from deep, long, ambitious games, Warlock just isn't meant to be played with that sort of scale or attitude. This is a game where you'll spend far more time fighting than developing or exploring. In fact, I'd argue that Warlock -almost- feels like a blown up 4x version of a game like Master of Monsters or Dark Wizard or even Advance Wars at times. The focus on combat is really this strong. From the first turn until the last, you'll be controlling a significant (and growing) military, and all the incentives are placed on continual warfare. There are non-military ways to win the game, but even this depend on a robust military presence. Good luck getting the resources necessary to defeat a God or take all the Holy Lands without having the strongest military in the game.

So, basically, don't go wondering into Warlock hoping you'll be able to win with one well-managed supercity. This is a war game with a fantasy 4x engine. However, this isn't a -bad- thing. It actually works fairly well. I never felt bored. I never felt like I was cycling through turns. Try the demo and see if the pace is worth it for you.

In any case, there's a lot more to say here. The upgrade options for each unit are quite robust. Basically, there are four types of upgrades: equipment-based, experience-based, type-based, and magic based. You get access to new equipment by building equipment buildings, like smithies, iron forges, silver forges, gem shops, potion shops, and more. Once you have access to equipment, you can buy specific pieces for each unit. For example, you know your warrior is about to go toe-to-toe with an elemental? Buy some amulets and some decent armor, and you'll be able to withstand a lot more elemental damage. Experience based upgrades come, not surprisingly, from experience in fighting and living (each turn autogenerates some experience). These are very similar to upgrades from Civ 5: increased attack, increased defense, increased defense in rough enviroments, increased abilities to move over rough terrain, etc. etc. Magic based upgrades include enhancements and curses placed on your units either through your own means or by your enemies. These include resistances, weapon enchantments, and lots of movement enchantments. Finally, type-based upgrades involve the ability to "upgrade" your unit to a more advanced type once the prerequisites have been built. Equipment, magic, and experience based upgrades follow your unit as it is promoted. All in all, it's a rather deep and interesting system. By the end, you're main fighting forces should be nigh-unstoppable by all but the most fierce-some opponents.

As noted above, there are portals to other worlds. These other worlds include incredible resources that you can tap for more mana/money/food, more equipment, or new unit types. There are also lots of holy lands on the other side of portals. Holy lands allow you to build temples to the various "gods" that exist in this universe. These temples give you increased relations with the god they're dedicated to, as well as access to special, powerful (and expensive!) units. Currying favor with Gods also grants you access to spells and abilities not available otherwise. All in all, there is a lot going on in this game, even if the scale and the pace of the game put the focus entirely on warfare.

There are downsides to the game, unfortunately. Some of the mechanics aren't entirely clear. The AI cheats in order to be competitive. Multiplayer isn't included yet, although it is supposed to be coming as a patch. Despite the 4x genre, there aren't any fun statistics or charts available, either in-game or during the end-game. One of the victory conditions, the ultimate spell 'Unity,' is currently not enabled in the game. Additionally, you cannot select available victory conditions, and there is no information in-game on how either you or your opponents are doing when it comes to victory conditions. Diplomacy is shallow. Not only are advanced options not available (like preventing other players from entering your domain), but the AI seems somewhat easy to game through diplomacy. For example, I once declared war, took a city, then bought peace (for a cheap price) to prevent a counterattack.

However, seeing the release as just the beginning, there is a lot of potential with this game. If they fix up some of the confusion about mechanics; add in multiplayer; better balance the AI; add some better diplomatic options; add in some Civ 4-and-before style charts and statistics to, at least, the end-game; and give some more robust non-military options, I think we would have a classic here. As is, we still have a fun, if unambitious, title that will suck up hours of time.. if you let it.

Overall, I think Warlock is definitely a good game with the potential to become a great game. If you enjoy 4x at all, I'd at least give the demo a shot. If you like fantasy 4x games and you enjoyed Civ 5, you may just want to buy it right now. Luckily for us, the game's launch price is a paltry 20 dollars. This is certainly worth that much money even in its current state.

I'm so sick and tired of the ignorance that pervades this site when it comes to the used game market and online passes. It seems like once a week or so, Jim launches some big tirade against online passes or in favor of the used game market, and any responses are lost in a flood of "JIM ROCKS," "JIM IS FAT BUT I LOVE HIM," and "ME TOO"-type responses. As a result, I'm taking a C-Blog to set the record straight: online passes HAVE THE POTENTIAL to be a straight positive for gamers and game developers, if done right.

Let me start by critiquing the central argument of the anti-online pass crew: that used games are an integral part of the gaming market. The basic argument they make is that used game sales finance new game purchases. However, online passes devalue the used game market. This, they insist, will lower used game prices and crash the market. The inevitably result, supposedly, is that general game sales will suffer and all will be worse off.

This basic argument would be correct.. if market economics only applied to the used game market. Fortunately, market economics also applies to the new game market, so this claim is totally bunk.

Let's follow the logic here. Online passes -> lower used game values -> less money for used game trade-ins -> less sales. The basic argument being that, over time, the -de facto- price of new games for a certain subset of gamers (trading gamers) ends up be increased. This is because their resell value is lowered, and these trading gamers price in the resell value when they make their initial purchase. So how should retail outlets and game developers respond to this? If prices are set too high and if this results in less sales.. what would you do as a market entity? Would you just sit there and realize what a mistake you made with online passes?

No. No of course you wouldn't. That would be incredibly idiotic. Any reasonable market entity would respond by LOWERING PRICES. Now, keep in mind, I'm not necessarily arguing that this will lead to a drop in the initial price of video games. However, it should almost certainly result in quicker and deeper price cuts during the lifetime of the game. If game developers were smart, they would institute online passes AND drop the initial price by 10 dollars simultaneously, but I don't think they're that imaginative. However, when game sales stall, retail outlets and publishers put the game on sale and even engage in permanent price drops. These are already standard procedures in the gaming market. I have absolutely no idea why we should expect the situation after online passes to be any different. In fact, this could actually increase companies' flexibility to engage in price cuts for two reasons: 1. They'll now be receiving revenue on online passes, which they hadn't had access to previous, 2. There will be less used game sales and more new game sales.

So, let's reflect. The introduction of online passes will not hurt game developers because it's a market and they can respond to problems of pricing vs. demand. This also means that gamers will not be hurt by the general shift in prices because game developers have a strong ECONOMIC incentive in re-establishing a DE FACTO price level comparable to pre-online passes.

Moving forward, is there any evidence that this could actually be -good- news? The answer is.. yes. This can totally be good news for developers and gamers.

I realized this myself about a year ago during one of the cyclical heat-ups in the whole used game debate. I was solidly on the used game market's side, and I decided to create a rough little formal model to try to demonstrate why used games were central to the gaming market. However, almost instantly, the truth stared me in the face: any gaming dollar that goes to Gamestop is a gaming dollar wasted.

Let's face it, as gamers, we basically have two primary economic goals: 1. Pay lower prices for games, 2. See more games being made, especially by our favorite developers. If you agree with this basic goal, you should obviously agree that, in a perfect world, all gaming money would go to either gamers or game developers. Money that stays in the hands of gamers is obvious - we get to keep more of our (sometimes) hard earned money! However, when more money goes to developers, we get a better game economy overall. We should see more games being made; we should see more talent being hired; we should see greater chances being taken; we should see more developers staying open; and, in particular, we should see our favorite developers succeeding on the market.

If you agree with this basic argument then.. why do you want to see money go to Gamestop? About half of Gamestop's total revenue (and, trust me, it's a MASSIVE company, we're talking BILLIONS of dollars) is straight from used game sales. Not a single dollar of this money goes to the companies that make games we all, and not a single dollar stays in the wallet of gamers. I understand that there are alternatives now, such as ebay, Amazon, Dtoid, etc. However, let's be realistic. When discussing the macro of the game industry, the used game market is dominating far more by entities like Gamestop than player-to-player services over the internet.

Let's reflect again: not only are the economic arguments made by Jim Sterling et al. completely nonsensical, but there are real economic incentives for gamers to be fine with online passes.

Let's cover a few more things: 1. Since online passes are optional and since, by Jim's very argument, they devalue used games, they actually CREATE options for gamers. Do you not like multiplayer? Buy a game used, and you don't need to pay for it. How is this something that nobody is fine with?
2. Games are often compared to the car and book market. "You wouldn't outlaw buying used cars, would you?!" However, the online pass situation doesn't really have an analog. Do books often come with online support that I am unaware of? Online support requiring upkeep by a dedicated team, a network of servers, etc. etc.? I guess car warranties have some similarities, but not all car warranties can be transferred between owners. As far as I can tell, the "used market" comparison doesn't tell us anything about the morality of online passes.

So, to recap: online passes will NOT destroy the gaming market; they CAN create a better distribution of resources (gamers and developer, not gamer, developer, and GameStop); they create more options for gamers; and the used market metaphor really says nothing about them.

So, I guess there is a question that deserves to be asked: well, Mr. Killias2, can you think of an example of a situation unfolding as you describe? Name a gaming market where used game sales are impossible, but where greater amounts of price fluctuation and a better spread of resources result in a more efficient and better system!

Okay. Steam. Case dismissed.

I don't know. I'm considering doing a series on great games that are generally overlooked. I decided that, if I'm going to start anywhere, I'll start with the Langrisser series.

Revisited Gem #1 - Langrisser Series
For - Fans of Strategy/Tactical RPGs, Tactical games in general. Especially Fire Emblem, Shining Force, and Advance Wars
Not for - Anyone who hates tactical RPGs or tactical games

So what is this Langrisser series? Langrisser started as a little known strategy RPG for the Genesis. Although the first one was later released in the States as Warsong (which a few of you might know), there have been no further attempts to bring any of the games in this series Westward, which is a real shame.
Basically, Langrisser is something of a hybrid between games like Advance Wars and Military Madness and games like Shining Force and Fire Emblem. You begin a scenario, move and attack with units, use special abilities, and try to defeat the enemy. The game is based on a square grid, and units can be attacked from four directions directly adjacent to their location. In latter games, ranged combat is also possible from further away. Finally, the game is based, to some extent, on a rock/paper/scissors-esque structure. Infantry beats pikemen, which beat cavalry, which beat infantry. In the original, archers fill the role of pikemen, but, in later games, they are a sort of weak ranged element that add a new strategic layer. There are also units that are better/worse on water, units that can fly, long-range units (ballistae in later installments), and plenty of others.



In terms of HP and basic setup, Langrisser is actually more like Advance Wars/Military Madness than its RPG brethren. Each unit has 10 hitpoints, and units' ability to inflict damage is based on attack/defense values and a variety of modifiers, such as terrain, abilities, unit type(s), etc. Most of this should be fairly familiar especially to fans of Military Madness and Advance Wars. The picture above shows the scene that plays when two units engage in a fight. Look familiar, Advance Wars/Military Madness fans? Additionally, some of the more RPG...ish elements from Shining Force/etc. are gone. You can't go to towns. You can't talk to people. The story (especially for the earlier games in the series) is more or less linear.

However, Langrisser also shares elements with its RPG brethren. For example, your generals gain experience by defeating enemies. After gaining 10 levels, they can develop into a new class, which is selected via a branching class system. Although you should generally stick to more traditional routes, this gives you some flexibility to try out new classes and strategies. You can make healers into mages, mages into knights, and knights into flyers, etc. etc. You can always find new weapons on the battlefield or from victories, and you can be new weapons and items at menu-based shops that you can access between levels. Even though you don't have towns to visit, these shops do add some interesting stuff to an otherwise boring game. Overall, the level progression system, with its class elements, and the item system do make the game feel significantly more like an RPG (and add to the sense of progress). Certain classes also have access to spells, which tend to act more like spells a la FF Tactics/Shining Force than abilities in Advance Wars.

The story is also virtually ripped from the.. textblocks of the standard RPGs of its era. Especially with the first few installments, the story is a basic medieval setting where "evil wants MacGuffin, and you save the day." However, the presentation tends to be generally good, and the story has a way of growing on you even with all of its trite nonsense. Especially in latter installments, the story begins to open up a little bit and explore the motivations of the characters. Langrisser II/Der Langrisser, in particular, shows the primary villains in a positive light. In Der Langrisser, you can even join the villains, either to support evil, to further your own goals, or to actually do the right thing (!).

However, none of the above really gets at what makes Langrisser special. Thus far, it would probably seem like the game is pretty typical for its genre. However, what makes the game different is that, well, there are two different kinds of units: generals and mercenaries. Generals are your character units: these are the guys that can gain levels, wear equipment, and change classes. They also are the ones with special abilities and storylines. Mercenaries are hired to work for your generals. Generals can only hire certain mercenaries based on their strengths. For example, a Knight can hire cavalry but not pikemen. Lords can hire pikemen, but not crusaders. Priests can hire crusaders, but neither cavalry nor pikemen. Also, depending on the general, they can only hire a set -number- of mercenaries. This is partially driven by class, but it can also depend on other progression elements as well. In other words, a weaker commander might only be able to hire 3 units, while a stronger might hire 5-6.

Once you're actually in the battle, these units stick to your general. If you use some sort of autocontrol (which, trust me, will save plenty of wasted time), they will automatically move with and protect your general with certain formations. More importantly, if they are in their general's zone of influence, they will gain the specific bonus that general yields to his or her units. Again, both the size of this zone of influence and the size of the bonus are based on the specific general and the specific class. Weaker generals will barely impact their mercs, while stronger generals will have a larger impact over a sizable area. Additionally, this effect is split into an attack and a defensive bonus. This means that certain commanders will do better on the offensive, while others will do better at holding ground. Additionally, if a commander is killed, all of his or her mercs disappear. These elements add a whole new level to the tactics, as you need to maintain formation, keep your units together, and take advantage of splits in the enemy force.



However, more importantly, this all serves to make the battles feel FAR larger than in other games in the genre, as well as genuinely allow for control over territory. When you have a line of pikemen blocking a pass from a cavalry charge, it's actually a -full- line of men. Behind this line you can have healers, wizards, archers, and artillery all hammering the enemy forces and maintaining your defensive formation. It all feels very satisfying, and I honestly can't go back and play other SRPG's after enjoying the Langrisser games.

Overall, next to FF Tactics, the Langrisser series is probably my favorite series of Tactical RPGs. I hope that, somehow, we see some return to its style of gameplay, as the license is largely dead and buried.

Officially translated games: Langrisser I aka Warsong for Sega Genesis
Unofficially translated games: Langrisser I for PC, Langrisser II for Sega Genesis, Der Langrisser for Super Nintendo, Crest of Gaia (sort of related, but very different game) for PC-Engine

Most highly recommended: Langrisser I for either Genesis or PC, Langrisser II for Genesis, Der Langrisser for SNES. Largely avoid Langrisser III, as it's more of a Dragon Force ripoff. Langrisser IV is currently being translated, so watch for it.

Differences
Langrisser I for Genesis - No ranged units, overall less polished
Langrisser I for PC/Langrisser II - Ranged units introduced
Der Langrisser - Branching storylines, with lots of very different ways to approach the story

More information: http://elsallia.com/ - Mostly dead but some people on the forum. There is just a wealth of info. on that site regardless.