764 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

^
The only reason there are multiple niches now for Bioware games is that they have tried to change the formula, and now have a conflicted fan base. If they instead had made a sequel that was in line for a series envisioned as the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, the disparity would have been much less.

[Allan Schumacher]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm sure the games will have post release sales too.  Hopefully lots because it means the game is good!  I'm just saying that the game doesn't actually need any sales to be successful.  The fans all effectively preordered the game 18 months in advance.

There's nothing else like that in gaming.  BioWare cannot make a game and still call it a success if it doesn't sell a single unit.

Allan, if a Kickstarter game like Wasteland 2 had a totally non-cinematic approach to story-telling, lots of old-school cRPG stats and mechanisms, silent PC and all sorts of other things some here on the forums are begging for, and it is completely financed by the supposed 'niche' players AND it ships more than, say, 1.5 million copies, do you think EA and Bioware will begin realizing it's not a niche market after all?

If it does really well I think a lot of studios would have to take notice.  Especially if it's mind blowingly successful.

I think the industry has some level of conservatism due to the dollars required, so decisions really need to be justified as being an acceptable level of risk (I think this is reasonably fair too).  If Wasteland 2 ends up having 2 million+ sales (especially as a PC only title) I could see larger publishing companies taking notice.

[Realmzmaster]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm sure the games will have post release sales too.  Hopefully lots because it means the game is good!  I'm just saying that the game doesn't actually need any sales to be successful.  The fans all effectively preordered the game 18 months in advance.

There's nothing else like that in gaming.  BioWare cannot make a game and still call it a success if it doesn't sell a single unit.

Allan, if a Kickstarter game like Wasteland 2 had a totally non-cinematic approach to story-telling, lots of old-school cRPG stats and mechanisms, silent PC and all sorts of other things some here on the forums are begging for, and it is completely financed by the supposed 'niche' players AND it ships more than, say, 1.5 million copies, do you think EA and Bioware will begin realizing it's not a niche market after all?

If it does really well I think a lot of studios would have to take notice.  Especially if it's mind blowingly successful.

I think the industry has some level of conservatism due to the dollars required, so decisions really need to be justified as being an acceptable level of risk (I think this is reasonably fair too).  If Wasteland 2 ends up having 2 million+ sales (especially as a PC only title) I could see larger publishing companies taking notice.

I am sure most developers will take notice, but the other side of the coin is also true. Developers will take notice if the compamies involved fail to deliver or the number of sales does not exceed the number of people who donated. The people who donated and received the game will be happy, but it will still remain a niche with no growth.

The big point is that the developers have to deliver the product and that is no small hurdle.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 29 juin 2012 - 12:40 .

[Vormaerin]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^
The only reason there are multiple niches now for Bioware games is that they have tried to change the formula, and now have a conflicted fan base. If they instead had made a sequel that was in line for a series envisioned as the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, the disparity would have been much less.

Not really.  There was plenty of complaints about DAO.   A DAO II wouldn't have kept the player base unified.  It might have kept some of the factions thinking they couldn't get what they really wanted.

The assumption that DA2 failed because it "changed the formula" is an unsubstantiated one.   DA2's problems were about being rushed and the resulting lack of polished execution.  If DAO had been as rushed as DA2, no one would be talking about it as a great game.

[Fallstar]

DA2 completely changed the series. I'm sure that was what some people wanted and good for them. What I wanted was to go from Assassin's Creed 1 to AC2. I wanted them to take the current system, look at the most common complaints (combat feels clunky, certain abilites are ridiculously OP...Mana Clash I'm looking at you, some boring gatherer style quests) and improve on them. Not that I agree with those complaints, that's just what I remember reading about. 

AC2 took the current combat system and made it more diverse. They made mission structure more varied whilst still keeping a majority of missions in the format fans liked from the first game. They added new mechanics such as the ability to own shops etc. They did not remove things or make the game simpler to play. On the contrary, AC2 required a lot more knowledge to master than AC1. And now they're approaching the 5th major game in the series. 

DA2 took the combat system from Origins, and changed the pace of combat completely. Whilst it definitely didn't feel clunky, I felt like I was being punished for pausing and taking a look at what was happening. If I did that, then the wave system made the time I spent doing so pointless. Better to just hit my A button/attack closest enemy keybind and fire off my abilites in real time. (On a side note, I played DA2 on both the 360 and PC and if you played in real time on the 360 it was actually extremely enjoyable, mainly due to how the targeting system was so much more fluid on the console than on the PC.) They then removed a feature - the overhead camera. Why. Rather than removing a feature from the PC version, they should have added it to the console one. (As DA2's long range AOE targeting was a frustrating mess on the console as well as PC version.) Instead of keeping the successful, core features of the first game's combat and adding to them, a la AC, they changed direction completely.

AC2 also improved on the non combat features of AC1. For example, the ability to own and upgrade your villa for income, something that wasn't present in AC1. They also added many more 'side quests' into the game, adding large amounts of content rather than taking it away. Whereas DA2 removed non combat features. Skills? Nope. Instead of making skills more useful, for example by having high tier herbalism + poison making be able to make the most potent untradeable items in the game (eg having superior class potions in origins), they just cut them.  And as for some of the complaints regarding gatherer quests, I'd far rather get 10 health poultices to help the chantry aid the wounded than find someone's trousers or whatever.

It seems that instead of taking DAO and adding to it, they made a completely different game. Now if DAO had sunk, if its sales had plummeted after the first couple of weeks of hype died down, you could understand the devs thinking that the game wasn't selling very well, we need to change things around pretty dramatically. But it didn't. DAO sold excellently, and not just in the first couple of weeks, it sustained a high level of sales for a long time. Mostly due to people holding back on a new IP and waiting to see what their friends say or w.e I assume.

And since DAO did have such a long development time, you'd think they'd have wanted to build off of all that work instead of going where they did. SO to answer the OP, I think DAO appealed to a pretty wide audience (I remember 3 million sales being bandied around?). I think DA2 they just took some risks, changing the direction of the series. IMO that was a mistake, there was no need to "staple two Archdemons together" as one dev said, but they didn't have to do that kind of about turn.

Generic Rant #18932893 about DA2 over.

AC2 is also recognisably from the same series as AC1. The UI is very similar, the art style is the same etc. In DA2 they took a beautiful UI from Origins, and replaced it with something that reminded me of AC to be honest. Same goes for the art style. Everything felt too clean for my liking in DA2, and not just the city environments.

Modifié par DuskWarden, 29 juin 2012 - 01:40 .

[Brockololly]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
The only reason there are multiple niches now for Bioware games is that they have tried to change the formula, and now have a conflicted fan base. If they instead had made a sequel that was in line for a series envisioned as the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, the disparity would have been much less.

True. And that's one big reason why I don't understand why they made the more cinematic changes to DA2 instead of keeping their franchises with different identities beyond simply genre. Keep the more cinematic, action RPG lite stuff for Mass Effect and the spiritual successor to BG route to Dragon Age.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
If it does really well I think a lot of studios would have to take notice.  Especially if it's mind blowingly successful.

I think the industry has some level of conservatism due to the dollars  required, so decisions really need to be justified as being an  acceptable level of risk (I think this is reasonably fair too).  If  Wasteland 2 ends up having 2 million+ sales (especially as a PC only title) I could see larger publishing companies taking notice.

But that's the thing that always bothers me with the likes of EA and other big publishers seemingly so intent on only developing blockbusters- why? Isn't it more risky throwing tens of millions of dollars at a game as opposed to what Fargo is doing with Wasteland 2 in making a game that's only  about 3 million and can be more focused in catering to a niche audience as a result?

Even something like ARMA II and Day-Z- the ARMA games cater to a pretty specific niche and yet they seem to be doing all right, especially with Day-Z. Yet as rough around the edges as something like Day-Z may be, its the reason ARMA II is still the number one selling game on Steam for about the last 2 months. And I can't see a big publisher ever trying something like Day-Z without trying to blow it up into some big huge production.

And with these Kickstarter games like Wasteland 2, it doesn't even really need to sell any copies in order for to be successful. They've already broken even and any copies sold is straight profit, especially with the likely higher margins they're getting via digital downloads as opposed to all the extra costs associated with retail. Compare that to how many big supposedly "AAA" games that flop out of the gates after having tens of millions sunk into them and countless marketing dollars.


I would just love to see a Dragon Age game done with the same mentality as Wasteland 2 or BG2- minimal voice acting, isometric/top down perspective and so forth. These Kickstarters show there is a market for those types of games and yet big developers ignore them. I don't really get it.

Realmzmaster wrote...
I am sure most developers will take notice, but the other side of the  coin is also true. Developers will take notice if the compamies involved fail to deliver or the number of sales does not exceed the number of  people who donated. The people who donated and received the game will be happy, but it will still remain a niche with no growth.

But that's the thing- so long as the Kckstarter game is funded and the game comes out and the funders are happy, anything more is a bonus. That's something Fargo has explicitly stated with Wasteland 2. He doesn't care if it reaches some mythical mainstream audience or millions of sales. He's making the game he wants to make for the people that funded the project.

I think that's the recipe for good sales after the fact though. They'll end up selling Wasteland 2 for less than your traditional $60 game, it'll likely scale well to a variety of PCs, seeing as its only digital download that cuts out retail middlemen and costs, and if the original funders are happy they're more likely to evangelize the game to others. Thats pretty much exactly what's happened with Day-Z: you have the core ARMA people who got onboard first and evangelized it to others; word of mouth spread; the mod itself is free and ARMA II is only $30 so its a lower barrier to entry than your typical $60 game. That's the kind of success that no marketing campaign is going to be able to achieve.

Modifié par Brockololly, 29 juin 2012 - 01:36 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Realmzmaster wrote...

I am sure most developers will take notice, but the other side of the coin is also true. Developers will take notice if the compamies involved fail to deliver or the number of sales does not exceed the number of people who donated. The people who donated and received the game will be happy, but it will still remain a niche with no growth.

The big point is that the developers have to deliver the product and that is no small hurdle.

Absolutely.  The big two for me are Double Fine's and Wasteland's (I think the Shadowrun one will be important too).  Schaefer's really got the ball rolling (although I didn't actually contribute as I've never actually played a Schaefer game.  Don't worry I checked my geek card at the door), though Wasteland's call for cash was a fair bit higher.

If they fail to deliver on a quality game, it won't just hurt their genres but also the kickstarter initiative in general.  There's already barriers to the kickstarter (Brian Fargo will have a much easier time getting money than Allan Schumacher), and I am curious what the reaction will be by some contributors if the game ends up not being what they wanted it to be, but if the games aren't successful it'll be a huge uphill battle to try to do more kickstarter stuff.

The death knell for those types of games would be awful too.  I'm a big fan of diversity.

[Allan Schumacher]

But that's the thing that always bothers me with the likes of EA and other big publishers seemingly so intent on only developing blockbusters- why? Isn't it more risky throwing tens of millions of dollars at a game as opposed to what Fargo is doing with Wasteland 2 in making a game that's only about 3 million and can be more focused in catering to a niche audience as a result?

I actually think Fargo has taken on a significant risk still. His investors are the fanbase. How do you think they'll react if they end up not liking the game? He also still needs to make the game. He's still going to have to deal with schedules and deadlines and he himself admits that he feels a large amount of pressure to deliver. It's just a pressure he embraces because he's doing what he's passionate about.

Even something like ARMA II and Day-Z- the ARMA games cater to a pretty specific niche and yet they seem to be doing all right, especially with Day-Z. Yet as rough around the edges as something like Day-Z may be, its the reason ARMA II is still the number one selling game on Steam for about the last 2 months. And I can't see a big publisher ever trying something like Day-Z without trying to blow it up into some big huge production.

What I find interesting about Day-Z is that it's really encouraging the idea of gaming as a platform.

And with these Kickstarter games like Wasteland 2, it doesn't even really need to sell any copies in order for to be successful. They've already broken even and any copies sold is straight profit, especially with the likely higher margins they're getting via digital downloads as opposed to all the extra costs associated with retail. Compare that to how many big supposedly "AAA" games that flop out of the gates after having tens of millions sunk into them and countless marketing dollars.

Yeah I've already state that Wasteland 2 doesn't actually need to sell anything, as long as the contributors come away satisfied.

Although in terms of "breaking even" and whatnot, I'm not sure what you mean. They were just looking for financing unless you mean they surpassed their goal. Which is awesome, but at the same time they are taking that money and reinvesting it into the game. Though Fargo isn't drawing a salary either (he's obviously successful enough that he doesn't need the money, since he was willing to contribute $100k of his own money).

The studio is still going to need to be wary of scope creep and there may be unexpected cost overruns that occur during development. Fortunately Fargo has experience with managing a company, and building games, so hopefully he can keep it minimized.

But that's the thing- so long as the Kckstarter game is funded and the game comes out and the funders are happy, anything more is a bonus. That's something Fargo has explicitly stated with Wasteland 2. He doesn't care if it reaches some mythical mainstream audience or millions of sales. He's making the game he wants to make for the people that funded the project.

That works for kickstarter, but the discussion is also about whether or not other studios will take notice.

[wsandista]

Since this has shifted to a discussion of Kickstarter, has everyone checked out the Deadstate project? That looks like it will be awesome.

[Allan Schumacher]

The kickstarter discussion I think still relates to the original thread in terms of games appealing to wider audiences. It's a counter example about the need to appeal to a wider audience.

I'd prefer to not make this thread just about kickstarter projects and would encourage those types of discussions to go to a more relevant forum.

[wsandista]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The kickstarter discussion I think still relates to the original thread in terms of games appealing to wider audiences. It's a counter example about the need to appeal to a wider audience.

I'd prefer to not make this thread just about kickstarter projects and would encourage those types of discussions to go to a more relevant forum.

OK.

Anyways, TES games should also be brought up in this discussion. They have always been open-world sandbox games and have been successful largely because they do one thing and they do it very well. Despite removing attributes and skill customization at character creation, they have stayed with the formula that people enjoyed for most previous titles(not counting Oblivion because that wasn't very good). My point is that instead of appealing to a wider audience by including/removing/tweaking features that may attract their interest, consistently making a niche game well will draw a steady audience.

[Realmzmaster]

If the Wasteland 2 is successful then developers will take notice. The problem is that if Bioware develops a product it is on Bioware's dime. If I invest in a kickstarter project then the product is being developed on my dime along with others. If Bioware decides to scrap the project, gets behind schedule, costs overruns Bioware eats the costs. If Fargo fails to deliver then I (along with others) eat the cost and I get nothing. If the game has cost overruns where does the extra money come from?
I also still have to like the finished product. If I do not then I may become soured on future kickstarter projects.
So I as an investor have to take the risk. Many gamers say what they want in a game but the final product could have all those points and not gel together.
If Bioware comes out with a game that gets mediocre reviews from the fanbase I can wait for the price to drop and pick it up cheap.

There is nothing wrong with appealing to a wider audience. DA2 simply failed when it came to execution and it lack polish which one expects from an AAA game. I still had fun with it, but I also know full well its faults.

[Realmzmaster]

wsandista wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The kickstarter discussion I think still relates to the original thread in terms of games appealing to wider audiences. It's a counter example about the need to appeal to a wider audience.

I'd prefer to not make this thread just about kickstarter projects and would encourage those types of discussions to go to a more relevant forum.

OK.

Anyways, TES games should also be brought up in this discussion. They have always been open-world sandbox games and have been successful largely because they do one thing and they do it very well. Despite removing attributes and skill customization at character creation, they have stayed with the formula that people enjoyed for most previous titles(not counting Oblivion because that wasn't very good). My point is that instead of appealing to a wider audience by including/removing/tweaking features that may attract their interest, consistently making a niche game well will draw a steady audience.

It will draw an audience for a while, but eventually members of the audience need to be replaced because gamers lose interest and move on to other interests, gamers interest change along with the technology more becomes expected, the economy worsens or natural selection sets in.

A niche market is fine as long as there is some growth in it. People say it is better to be a big fish in a little pond than a little fish in a big pond. It  depends on the number of competitors in the little pond. A big pond allows for more competitors. A little pond does not.

[Allan Schumacher]

wsandista wrote...

Anyways, TES games should also be brought up in this discussion. They have always been open-world sandbox games and have been successful largely because they do one thing and they do it very well. Despite removing attributes and skill customization at character creation, they have stayed with the formula that people enjoyed for most previous titles(not counting Oblivion because that wasn't very good). My point is that instead of appealing to a wider audience by including/removing/tweaking features that may attract their interest, consistently making a niche game well will draw a steady audience.

Has it really continued to appeal to just a niche?

I know some feel that the games have removed depth with each iteration since Morrowind.

I'd describe Skyrim as being quite a mainstream game, personally.  I'd also say the same for a game like Fallout 3.

[Realmzmaster]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The kickstarter discussion I think still relates to the original thread in terms of games appealing to wider audiences. It's a counter example about the need to appeal to a wider audience.

I'd prefer to not make this thread just about kickstarter projects and would encourage those types of discussions to go to a more relevant forum.

OK.

Anyways, TES games should also be brought up in this discussion. They have always been open-world sandbox games and have been successful largely because they do one thing and they do it very well. Despite removing attributes and skill customization at character creation, they have stayed with the formula that people enjoyed for most previous titles(not counting Oblivion because that wasn't very good). My point is that instead of appealing to a wider audience by including/removing/tweaking features that may attract their interest, consistently making a niche game well will draw a steady audience.

Agree with you on with most here.

Played TES and loved it but this franchise is also going through some changes. Morrowind I thought was awasome. Oblivion a little less and Skyrim is lesser imho. The lack in depth in the game gets lesser as the franchise progresses.

The environments are beautifull still, even better because of improved graphics, but more plain and boring imho considering that the technics have improved since.

Overall they stayed with the basics though, but they trimmed down on it too. I'm just wondering why this happens to series which are there for some time...Is it the need to change constantly to attract more people?

The formula is working for them. The other point is that a TES game comes out about every five years. Bethesda is changing the game to meet the new market while trying not to upset its previous base. Unfortuantely (IMHO) the story has taken a hit when it comes to TES games. Morrowind for me had the best story of all the TES games. Oblivion's story was abysmal and Skyrim's was better but not equal to Morrowind. 
TES strong point is open world sandbox exploration. The games after Morrowind have emphasised this point more than the story. 

The trimming or streamlining is to make the gameplay easier and more appealling to others.

The other point is that TES games are set far enough apart in game time so that the events of the previous game has very little bearing on the present game.  DAO and DA2 occurred in the same timeline. The main story in TES games have no loose ends or cliffhangers. There is no importing of characters from one game to the next. No worries about import flags. You import characters for expansions of that particular game, but never the main games.

Games change because the gamers change. Expectations may be different. I grew up in a D & D world where all the crpgs were based on that system or a derivative. Many gamers now have never touched D & D and may have different expectations. Some gamers do not care about all the complexity that comes with the ruleset. Systems like Drakensang are even more complex than D & D in certain aspects.
Many gamers want to have fun with their games and not have to read a 100-200 page manual to figure out how to play it.

[Realmzmaster]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Anyways, TES games should also be brought up in this discussion. They have always been open-world sandbox games and have been successful largely because they do one thing and they do it very well. Despite removing attributes and skill customization at character creation, they have stayed with the formula that people enjoyed for most previous titles(not counting Oblivion because that wasn't very good). My point is that instead of appealing to a wider audience by including/removing/tweaking features that may attract their interest, consistently making a niche game well will draw a steady audience.

Has it really continued to appeal to just a niche?

I know some feel that the games have removed depth with each iteration since Morrowind.

I'd describe Skyrim as being quite a mainstream game, personally.  I'd also say the same for a game like Fallout 3.

TES games are appealling to a wider audience. TES games do not appeal to just a niche. Skyrim sold 15 million copies and counting that is not a niche. It is selling well on all platforms not just the PC. Gamers are buying it because it is basically a first person action game (it has enough shooter aspects to appeal to that crowd) and still retains enough RPG elements to make it appealling to its fanbase. 

[AngryFrozenWater]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

There is nothing wrong with appealing to a wider audience. DA2 simply failed when it came to execution and it lack polish which one expects from an AAA game. I still had fun with it, but I also know full well its faults

You posted this while I was writing mine. I too think that DA2 probably needed some more dev. time. But the changes overall were so that in a sense the franchise is starting to go into another direction completely. RPG is a broad thing that has a lot of different angles and views but a franchise normally has a certain kind of view on it and goes on from there. There will be some tweaking of course to stay appealing but to make all the games on the market kind of alike is not going to get a big core of fanbase. Staying close to your roots can be much more profitable in the long term then going with the overall flow.

That's a great reply, sjpelkessjpeler. That's in essence what I think.

A couple of years ago Ray Muzyka, co-founder of Bioware, said that the line between RPGs and shooters will be blurring. However, he viewed that as an advantage. I guess he made that a mission statement for all his games. I assume that for Dragon Age, he translates that to "the line between RPGs and action games". Note that at the time DA:O was still under development.

So, even if I agree with you, it will not change the fact that BW will continue their attempts to streamline and iconize Dragon Age and blurr the franchise, because that is what he thinks the market wants and where the money is.

I think that his method to achieve his goal is too radical. DA2 doesn't sell more than DA:O, even if it is closer to his vision. Another game, Skyrim, is also moving along that way. However, I think the difference between the two franchises is that Bethesda is trying to improve their games to achieve their goal, a better open world game, and that Bioware is trying to simplify the game, by using more economical production methods as their primary focus in combination with the above mentioned vision, and thus it moves too far away from the game which started the franchise. Having a voice acted game doesn't make it sells better. If it makes games sell worse then it didn't stop Skyrim. The reality is that Skyrim sells more games than DA2, because Skyrim stays close to its roots. It is OK that BW fans do not like Skyrim, but over 10 million copies for a game which is supposed to be selling to a niche market is no mean feat. It looks like all the stuff carried over from ME didn't do the trick for DA2 either.

Something is wrong here. BW needs to change its vision or maybe simply give it some more love and attention. And bring back the fun.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 29 juin 2012 - 04:04 .

[MerinTB]

Brockololly wrote...
True. And that's one big reason why I don't understand why they made the more cinematic changes to DA2 instead of keeping their franchises with different identities beyond simply genre. Keep the more cinematic, action RPG lite stuff for Mass Effect and the spiritual successor to BG route to Dragon Age.

thru...

Brockololly wrote...
But that's the thing- so long as the Kckstarter game is funded and the game comes out and the funders are happy, anything more is a bonus. That's something Fargo has explicitly stated with Wasteland 2. He doesn't care if it reaches some mythical mainstream audience or millions of sales. He's making the game he wants to make for the people that funded the project.

I think that's the recipe for good sales after the fact though. They'll end up selling Wasteland 2 for less than your traditional $60 game, it'll likely scale well to a variety of PCs, seeing as its only digital download that cuts out retail middlemen and costs, and if the original funders are happy they're more likely to evangelize the game to others. Thats pretty much exactly what's happened with Day-Z: you have the core ARMA people who got onboard first and evangelized it to others; word of mouth spread; the mod itself is free and ARMA II is only $30 so its a lower barrier to entry than your typical $60 game. That's the kind of success that no marketing campaign is going to be able to achieve.

All brilliant.

[Realmzmaster]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

@Realzmaster

My point in the comparison of the TES games I mentioned was to make clear that franchises are watered down imho as the franchise continues.

DA has two games up untill now, and the second story/depth/character wise is watered down. There are people who think that DA2 is better and they have every right to feel that way but I like the franchise because of DAO and DA2 for me is the lesser game here.

I can understand that it's annoying to read a lot of manual to understand the game mechanics but imho a game like DA is supposed to be more complex than a simple action game. The border between action and RP games is getting thinner and it's starting to become a big blur imho.

The game can be complex , but not require a 200 page manual to get the most out of the game. Many gamers could not tell you what it means to hit armor class zero (THAC0) or why a +3 sword is nedded to hit a demon. The second edition D & D rules had armor class going from 10 (worst)  to -10 (best) .
Baldur's Gate's game maual is 146 pages long. Baldur's Gates II Shadows of Amn game manual is 241 pages long not counting the credits and index. The manual for Temple of Elemental Evil ( based on the 3.5 ruleset) clocks in at 151 pages (in small print)  not counting the credits and index. Neverwinter Nights is also 151 pages long. Pool of Radiance: Ruins of Myth Drannor is 136 pages long (small print).

I like manuals that explain everything, but I also own most of the editions of D & D, AD & D and back to just D & D. The only manuals that I have that are longer belong to combat flight simulators like Falcon 4.0 (which also had over 30 training missions to get you acquainted with the F-16).

I doubt many gamers want to slog through manuals that long to play a game. Many gamers have families so are looking for crpgs that are complex but easy to get into and understand. I am a believer in the KISS principle. I see no reason for complexity for the sake of complexity.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But where there is complexity, that complexity should be documented. DA2 made no effort at all to explain how its mechanics worked (DAO also was porrly documented, but the toolset made it easy for us to go find the relevant details ourselves).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 29 juin 2012 - 05:40 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Vormaerin wrote...

In fact, the way Silvius and allied posters talk almost makes it seem like a malleable protagonist is more important that the story. 

It is.  A malleable protagonist is vastly more important than the story.