Incorrect, King Field's II-IV were released in the United States as KIng's Field 1 to 3. The first one was the only one not released in the United States and that was rectified with a fan made translation into English. .
Regardless minor factual inconsistencies aside my point still stands. I am not here to debate minor points of trivia.
Regardless minor factual inconsistencies aside my point still stands. I am not here to debate minor points of trivia.
The point is that From Software is more well-known than you give it credit. In fact, Demon Souls, Dark Souls and the upcoming Dark Souls II have their roots in the King's Field series.
Unfortunately, the problem with saying people preferred game X over game Y for reason Z, or purchased game X specifically because of feature Y or Z, is
a) this is really impossible to know without surveying people who have bought the game - something I think game companies should do, and BTW maybe they do do, but it seems they keep a lot of that data internally, sharing it with the marketing department, and not always with fans to have arguments about;
b.) it may be a cluster of features, and not just one, that make people purchase a game - OR not buy it. It can be hard to put it down to one thing (say, voiced or voiceless protagonist, open or 'closed' world, etc.)
I know people say gaming forums are full of nothing but useless whiners, but the honest fact is, they may be the only places where gaming companies can actually see people stating forthrightly what features they do or do not like in their games (without having to collect survey data). They can even start counting whether there is more love or hate. 
Of course, yes, we all know forum users tend to be far more "hardcore fans" than the typical purchaser, so the other argument is how representative forumites are of people who generally buy them, but may not go on a forum to say either what they like OR what they hate.
As I've said though, at least the "hardcore fans" will volunteer what they do and don't like; without first having to be asked to provide it.
If Dragon Age were to have a more complex ruleset it would require either a extremely good manual or tutorial or both. For example earlier Bioware games based on the D & D ruleset had very large manuals because it not only had to explain the game but also the D & D ruleset. Example the manual for BG2 is 264 pages long. The first 46 pages are used to expalin the game the other 218 pages explain the setting and the D & D ruleset along with descriptions of all the spells used.
Neverwinter Nights has a 218 page manual. The first 37 pages explain the game. Pages 38-156 explain the D & D ruleset. Pages 157-172 the toolkit. Pages 173-218 ate the appendices with charts and tables plus the index. Neverwinter Nights also has an in-game tutorial.
Without a very good manual or tutorial I speculate that the average casual player would probably look elsewhere to spend their entertainment dollar.
That is one of the reasons that games like Dark Souls, Demon Souls, (other upcoming games like Wasteland 2, Project Eternity) and older games like Wizardry, Ultima, Might and Magic or Bard's Tale now find a home in a niche within a niche market.
Since Bioware/EA is in the entertainment business it is not just fighting against other game companies. It is fighting against most if not all entertainment products which include movies, books, sports etc. There has to be a compelling reason for purchaser of the game to choose it over other entertainment products, because the person is going to invest both time and money.
Now, some may say well play the game on easy. That still requires that the purchaser invest time to learn a more complex system which requires a good manual, tutorial or both.
I like complex systems that allow me to really define my character, but that is not everyone's cup of tea. The rule set I would like to see many on this forum would call tedious.
I can pick up a book (like the Hunger games) and simply start reading. I can go watch a movie or sports contest (as many do). I can go out and enjoy fine dining. What is going to compell that same person to pick up a game like Dragon Age?
Many of the most enduring games have a simple ruleset, but the depth of play is where the complexity come in. For example , Scrabble, Chess, Monopoly, Othello, Xiangqi or Go have simple rulesets but actually mastering the games is a different story.
The developer of crpgs has to strike that fine balance so that complexity does not equal less fun and tedium.
^
Yet Dark Souls 2 was not the sequel to a Game of the Year. Dragon Age 2 was. Despite how "well known" From Software is/was, Bioware had a clear advantage in the two games from a publicity/marketing standpoint. For the two games to perform the same, sales wise, makes it hard to say anything close to "how many people would prefer X type of game over another."
Many different organizations named Dark Souls Game of the Year: Game Revolution, IncGamers, EGM's rated Dark Souls as Number 3 for the best of 2011 behind Skyrim and Batman Arkham City.
It is not like we are not talking about a contender. Also Dark Souls is the spiritual successor to Demon Souls which racked up quite a list of awards itself.
If Dragon Age were to have a more complex ruleset it would require either a extremely good manual or tutorial or both. For example earlier Bioware games based on the D & D ruleset had very large manuals because it not only had to explain the game but also the D & D ruleset. Example the manual for BG2 is 264 pages long. The first 46 pages are used to expalin the game the other 218 pages explain the setting and the D & D ruleset along with descriptions of all the spells used.
Neverwinter Nights has a 218 page manual. The first 37 pages explain the game. Pages 38-156 explain the D & D ruleset. Pages 157-172 the toolkit. Pages 173-218 ate the appendices with charts and tables plus the index. Neverwinter Nights also has an in-game tutorial.
Without a very good manual or tutorial I speculate that the average casual player would probably look elsewhere to spend their entertainment dollar.
That is one of the reasons that games like Dark Souls, Demon Souls, (other upcoming games like Wasteland 2, Project Eternity) and older games like Wizardry, Ultima, Might and Magic or Bard's Tale now find a home in a niche within a niche market.
Since Bioware/EA is in the entertainment business it is not just fighting against other game companies. It is fighting against most if not all entertainment products which include movies, books, sports etc. There has to be a compelling reason for purchaser of the game to choose it over other entertainment products, because the person is going to invest both time and money.
Now, some may say well play the game on easy. That still requires that the purchaser invest time to learn a more complex system which requires a good manual, tutorial or both.
I like complex systems that allow me to really define my character, but that is not everyone's cup of tea. The rule set I would like to see many on this forum would call tedious.
I can pick up a book (like the Hunger games) and simply start reading. I can go watch a movie or sports contest (as many do). I can go out and enjoy fine dining. What is going to compell that same person to pick up a game like Dragon Age?
Many of the most enduring games have a simple ruleset, but the depth of play is where the complexity come in. For example , Scrabble, Chess, Monopoly, Othello, Xiangqi or Go have simple rulesets but actually mastering the games is a different story.
The developer of crpgs has to strike that fine balance so that complexity does not equal less fun and tedium.
You say this as if a tutorial that wouldn't be boring is impossible. Or that complex rules can't have an intuitive, easy beginning that ramps up in difficulty further down the road as the system and challenges expand.
Also, a more complex ruleset can easily be balanced out by having the "auto-assignment" of stat/skill points more optimized so that people who don't want to think about such things can not worry about them.
Skyrim didn't let you auto-assign skills. It had, arguably, a very complex system, with dozens of skills, perks every level, varying spell effects and a variable crafting system... yet it sold more than nearly any other western RPG to date. That's because they made the INTERFACE simple, even if the underlying mechanics were more complex.
That's the fatal flaw of many RPGs that are complex. They not only require players to read a manual just to create a character that isn't worm food, but they also make their interface as exciting to use as Microsoft Access. Complexity for the sake of complexity is ludicrous. Complexity for the sake of increased freedom to pursue multiple approaches to things is sublime. And to say such a system requires the player sit down with a manual or PDF for four hours before even hitting "New Game" is poor design. A system that was complex enough to allow a player to read a manual or build/stats guide for four hours if they so choose, but also where a noob can hop in and pick up the basic mechanics and have fun within the first fifteen minutes is the best game possible. Depth without sacrificing enjoyment.
What is going to compell that same person to pick up a game like Dragon Age?
You make it seem like you can just sit down and play Monopoly without knowing the rules.
I can tell you a lot of the board games I've enjoyed most were not just "sit down and play".
Investment can pay off. Learn the rich rules for a game with depth, you can play it and have a rich experience.
I absolutely agree with FJ that the key for a computer/video game is to make the interface to the underlying depth simple and intuitive. Absolutely right.
I'm a big fan of the blogger Lewis Pulsipher over at Gamasutra. He deals with this issue in two posts that I think really touch on some of the things we are discussing:
http://gamasutra.com...is_Too_Many.php
http://www.gamasutra..._3040_Years.php
The second article is about how gaming has changed in general over the last few decades, but touches a bit on RPGs.
The first deals with this interesting problem: take away too many choices from gamers and they feel too limited, give them too many choices and they feel paralyzed, there is a sweet spot for finding the porridge that's just right.
If Dragon Age were to have a more complex ruleset it would require either a extremely good manual or tutorial or both. For example earlier Bioware games based on the D & D ruleset had very large manuals because it not only had to explain the game but also the D & D ruleset. Example the manual for BG2 is 264 pages long. The first 46 pages are used to expalin the game the other 218 pages explain the setting and the D & D ruleset along with descriptions of all the spells used.
Neverwinter Nights has a 218 page manual. The first 37 pages explain the game. Pages 38-156 explain the D & D ruleset. Pages 157-172 the toolkit. Pages 173-218 ate the appendices with charts and tables plus the index. Neverwinter Nights also has an in-game tutorial.
I love manuals but if you're asking me to read a 200-page manual on how to play your game, odds are I'll go play something else.
Neverwinter Nights has a 218 page manual. The first 37 pages explain the game. Pages 38-156 explain the D & D ruleset. Pages 157-172 the toolkit. Pages 173-218 ate the appendices with charts and tables plus the index. Neverwinter Nights also has an in-game tutorial.
You make it seem like you can just sit down and play Monopoly without knowing the rules.
I love manuals but if you're asking me to read a 200-page manual on how to play your game, odds are I'll go play something else.
I love manuals but if you're asking me to read a 200-page manual on how to play your game, odds are I'll go play something else.
Actually the manual part for playing the games were small. No more than 30-40 pages. The other part was the explanation of the D & D ruleset.
@CybAnt1, No I said that Monopoly had a simple set of rules but was difficult to master. The rules of Monopoly were at one time written on the inside of the top lid. The depth of the game came in the actual gameplay and social interaction between players. As I stated the most enduring games have simple rulesets but still have an amazing degree of depth. Just like any one can learn how the pieces move in Chess or Othello, but very few master either game.
@FJ, There is nothing wrong with simplicity. If complexity is going to be added it has to have a purpose. For example, how would you explain THAC0 and that the more negative the armor class the better in 1 and 2nd edition D & D which is what BG1, BG2 and NWN are based on?
I do not care how intuitive your UI is it will not explain those points, because they are counterintuitive. No matter how good the interface the rules cannot be counterintutive, but many crpgs rules are just that. That is why in 4th edition d & D it was changed
The other problem is that games that do not have classes have a great deal of trouble with automatic level up and placement of perks which is why Skyrim and Fallout do not have automatic level up.
Dragon Age because it has classes can level the attributes and package certain skills and abilities to fit the class. Take away the classes in DA how would you do an automatic level up with attributes, skills and abilities?
The way Fallout does it is that in-game each perk is explained and the attributes are explained. The beginning of Fallout 3 and Fallout:New Vegas actually serve as the tutorial which can be stopped at anytime, but the tutorial is there. That eases the beginner into the game and allows the veteran to skip it or do it for the extra experience.
I love manuals but if you're asking me to read a 200-page manual on how to play your game, odds are I'll go play something else.
You know, a lot of peoples' cars come with manuals that they have never read. The one that comes with mine is 300 pages. They still manage to drive, many times having never read them.
It's interesting how many manuals for devices in peoples' homes they have never read either - from DVRs to DVD players to home theatre systems.
I guess my point would be, the manual can often by bypassed, either in part or toto; in many cases, it's kind of like a fallback reference/resource, usually for when things start to go wrong. I sort of look at game manuals the same way - a lot of people WILL skip them until they hit the "Oh sh*t" part of the game where something's no longer making sense.
As I stated the most enduring games have simple rulesets
That may be true. BTW, I never thought (2E) D & D's was ever that terribly complicated (and I also think 3E went rather nicely toward streamlining without sacrificing depth). Players only need to know a small portion of the Players Handbook. The DM needs to know a lot more (particularly the DM's guide). I do agree THAC0 doesn't make sense for new players, but it's kind of like anything else: once you get how it works, you get how it works. That can take an afternoon. 
But, just as tastes and opinions differ, what people consider too complicated - or not - differs, too.
Like I said earlier, there's two types of players.
Some will hit and miss, and do X amount of damage one time and Y amount of damage another. And never wonder why.
Others will wonder what they can do to miss less often, and do more damage, and they'll start wanting to know how to maximize their outcomes. You can call this "minmaxing," "power gaming," or I prefer to just call it, "being smart".
I think a good CRPG should accommodate both types of players - an optional combat log could be one way, for example. Not there for those who don't want to deal with it, and there for those who want to study it.
You know, a lot of peoples' cars come with manuals that they have never read. The one that comes with mine is 300 pages. They still manage to drive, many times having never read them.
It's interesting how many manuals for devices in peoples' homes they have never read either - from DVRs to DVD players to home theatre systems.
I guess my point would be, the manual can often by bypassed, either in part or toto; in many cases, it's kind of like a fallback reference/resource, usually for when things start to go wrong.
You hit the point I am talking about a lot of people could save themselves the point you illustrate by reading the manual or doing a tutorial first instead of waiting for the moment when everything goes wrong. Parts of a car manual should be read like when to change the oil or what type of gasoline works the best for the engine. It would save many people a lot in repair costs by reading before driving or at least watch a tutorial.
Best to ease the frustration ahead of time rather than have the person hit the wall and then try to reach for the manual to figure out what went wrong only to find out they may not be able to correct the problem.
I'm a big fan of the blogger Lewis Pulsipher over at Gamasutra. He deals with this issue in two posts that I think really touch on some of the things we are discussing:
I think I remember this guy writing in Dragon back in the 80s. Always used to like his stuff.
Lewis Pulsipher also created the game Dragon Rage for Dwarfstar/Hertiage games back in 1982.
Retour en haut