Not Accessibility, but Dumbing Down

[KyivAfter12am]

This is exactly what we are talking about.

Yes, indie games just don't sell like they used to... ? Frankly speaking, these number heavy games like PoE sold more than most indie games dream of selling, no matter how "accessible" they are. So you know, you're also wrong about that.

Why do you think the "number heavy games" are indie these days? Might it be because the AAA studios know they won't sell enough of them to cover the budget?

 

[Atlantico]

Why do you think the "number heavy games" are indie these days? Might it be because the AAA studios know they won't sell enough of them to cover the budget?

Hardly, either way it's not very interesting to speculate why AAA studios do what they do. Fact remains, a nerdy numbers heavy game like PoE outsold its indie peers easily.

 

[KyivAfter12am]

a nerdy numbers heavy game like PoE outsold its indie peers easily

Which indie peers? More people have played Minecraft, Rust, Ark, PUBG, Torchlight 2, Stardew Valley... I can go on forever, if that's more interesting for this discussion than why sales-oriented companies don't make games of a particular genre.

 

[Sigourn]

RPG's shouldn't be targeted to people who are unwilling or uncapable of learning how they play. At all. However it is reasonable to think about easing the point of entry for newcomers that are interested. I wouldn't want everything simplified and made into triangles or something, but the initial system that is introduced to the player can be very humble in its nature, provided that it sprawls out of that initial simplicity as the game goes on.

That’s not how these things work. People who don’t want cRPGs hate character building and numbers. They just hate that stuff. No tutorial in the world would ease them into it.

False. Evidence: me. Most hardcore RPGs expect you to read a big ass manual and get acquaintanced with all mechanics as if you had been playing the game for weeks. Sorry, but I'm not gonna go through the hassle of reading the manual just to find the game simply isn't fun. That's what made Bethesda's RPGs so popular. It takes a matter of 1 hour, maybe? of starting the game and knowing whether you like it or not, and you don't even have to read a manual because it is all very intuitive. Does it lack depth? Of course it does, because what could have been a "tutorial dungeon" ends up being "your average dungeon".

Maybe a lot of people here are retarded, but there's a reason, like I mentioned, you aren't taught advanced math in first grade. You are taught the basics, and with every passing year your knowledge of math gets deeper. After a certain threshold, you stop "learning" math and you start "memorizing" math, which is why the average human being of 30 years who doesn't rely on advanced math to make a living has already forgot most of the "complex" mathematic formulas and so on.

RPGs, when properly done (I can't stress this enough, but there are retards who don't stop saying "THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS", no shit, because NO DEVELOPER has ever made a hardcore RPG properly) introduce the player all the mechanics slowly but surely allowing him/her to get acquiantanced with all the mechanics as the need arises.

 

[Ash]

The main reason is marketing. Marketing is everything. Get it out there enough, drill it into people's minds, and the sheep will follow. Complexity and difficulty of the game does count too, but it's minor. I think New Vegas showed that good RPGs can attain relative major success without producing utter trash. It has all the classic trappings: character creation, stat allocation and general exposition that goes on for some time before tossing you out into the big world to go your own way, which could certainly be straight into instant death. It's by no means accessible to the ultra retarded in the same way your average popamole is.

The correlation between every great classic game we love that didn't sell well is that they did not have notable marketing campaigns. Marketing is like 95% of the success game. Quality or lack thereof holds very little influence. How can someone consider buying your game if they've never even heard of it?
Another factor is the fucking gaming press. These are meant to be the people that sort the wheat from the chaff, but (generally speaking) they have no standards in quality nor ethics.
The complexity and challenge of the game does count too, but not anywhere on the level of marketing. Such qualities only bar out retards and children of a very young age.

Just look at Skyrim. Casual and shit by our standards, yes. But it's still a nerdy as fuck fantasy video game of some notable complexity. If that can do insanely well then actual RPGs can achieve relative success by comparison. And of course the game had a behemoth of a marketing campaign.

Fuck developers/publishers that dumb down the art just to maximise profits. Ultra accessibility has never been a necessity. Games have always been relatively accessible. It isn't fucking calculus, It's a small selection of level 1 math on a stat sheet that do very cool things. It's satisfying the inherent human desire to explore. It's overcoming simple, fun challenges. Devs/pubs just want to include the age group of 4 to 8 year olds and people of very short attention span to maximise profits.

 

[Atlantico]

Which indie peers? More people have played Minecraft, Rust, Ark, PUBG, Torchlight 2, Stardew Valley... I can go on forever, if that's more interesting for this discussion than why sales-oriented companies don't make games of a particular genre.

Well no, you can't go on forever. A very short list of indie games that have sold more than 500000 copies.

You're basically wrong on all counts.

 

[Black Angel]

False. Evidence: me. Most hardcore RPGs expect you to read a big ass manual and get acquaintanced with all mechanics as if you had been playing the game for weeks. Sorry, but I'm not gonna go through the hassle of reading the manual just to find the game simply isn't fun. That's what made Bethesda's RPGs so popular. It takes a matter of 1 hour, maybe? of starting the game and knowing whether you like it or not, and you don't even have to read a manual because it is all very intuitive. Does it lack depth? Of course it does, because what could have been a "tutorial dungeon" ends up being "your average dungeon".

Maybe a lot of people here are retarded, but there's a reason, like I mentioned, you aren't taught advanced math in first grade. You are taught the basics, and with every passing year your knowledge of math gets deeper. After a certain threshold, you stop "learning" math and you start "memorizing" math, which is why the average human being of 30 years who doesn't rely on advanced math to make a living has already forgot most of the "complex" mathematic formulas and so on.

Hardcore RPGs these days (that I've played anyway) would be Age of Decadence and Underrail. They don't have manuals because they're indie, and I managed to learn the mechanics in the first few hours of the gameplay just fine.

And I don't know how you could even come to that basic math-advanced math comparison with RPGs. I don't see anything too complex or 'math-advanced' in cRPGs. You only really need basic math to deal with Fallout and Arcanum's character creation, let alone AoD's and Underrail's. Maybe there are older RPGs that seemingly needed its' players to have some knowledge in advanced math, but I don't recall anybody talking about that kind of RPGs around here.

 

[KyivAfter12am]

A very short list of indie games that have sold more than 500000 copies.

It's already longer than the list of RPGs that have sold more than that

 

[Atlantico]

It's already longer than the list of RPGs that have sold more than that

Proportionally, no. RPGs are a fraction of the indie games published and the representation in sales far exceeds the quantity.

Still, you continue to be wrong on all accounts.

 

[Viata]

Hardcore RPGs these days (that I've played anyway) would be Age of Decadence and Underrail. They don't have manuals because they're indie, and I managed to learn the mechanics in the first few hours of the gameplay just fine.

Vault Dweller did a great job in explaining Age of Decadence's mechanics here and in his forum. Also, both games punish you harsh if you think you can do any build freely without understand what is going on, so for the people that enjoy learning the mechanics of the game, this motivates them.

which is why the average human being of 30 years who doesn't rely on advanced math to make a living has already forgot most of the "complex" mathematic formulas and so on.

What you define "advanced math" are mostly from the 18th to 19th century. There is hardly any advanced mathematics in games.

 

[KyivAfter12am]

RPGs are a fraction of the indie games published and the representation in sales far exceeds the quantity.

Again, Minecraft alone outsold the top 10 recent RPG's easily. Stardew Valley outsold PoE, I believe, and it's one of the 2 representatives of its genre on the PC, so what does it say "proportionally"? :D

 

[Atlantico]

Again, Minecraft alone outsold the top 10 recent RPG's easily. Stardew Valley outsold PoE, I believe, and it's one of the 2 representatives of its genre on the PC, so what does it say "proportionally"? :D

Nothing whatsoever. What is your point even now, it keeps changing every time you make a post.

 

[KyivAfter12am]

What is your point even now, it keeps changing every time you make a post.

My point is that "hardcore" RPGs are a niche of a niche, and they will never sell as well as less "number heavy" games like shooters, modern Bioware games or hiking simulators. You, on the other hand, are trying to argue against math

 

[Lurker King]

False. Evidence: me. Most hardcore RPGs expect you to read a big ass manual and get acquainted with all mechanics as if you had been playing the game for weeks. Sorry, but I'm not gonna go through the hassle of reading the manual just to find the game simply isn't fun.

Your criticism makes no sense because half of the fun lies in diving in complex mechanics and understanding the possible combinations. The fact alone that a cRPG can present an engrossing and complex system is an indicator of quality. Bad cRPGs have bad systems and you can tell, whether they have big manuals or not.

That's what made Bethesda's RPGs so popular. It takes a matter of 1 hour, maybe? of starting the game and knowing whether you like it or not, and you don't even have to read a manual because it is all very intuitive. Does it lack depth? Of course it does, because what could have been a "tutorial dungeon" ends up being "your average dungeon".

And yet they only managed to be “successful” from Oblivion onwards. The reason being the streamlined gameplay and fluffy mechanics. The main factor here is the amount of information. Proper cRPGs demand from the player tons of information. If the developers decide to present this information little by little doesn’t change the basic fact that the player still needs to learn a lot of stuff in order to play properly, and most players don’t want this cerebral aspect of gameplay. cRPGs are more like chess and most games labelled as cRPGs today are more like action games.

 

[Delterius]

like I mentioned, you aren't taught advanced math in first grade.

CRPGs are 'advanced math' now.

 

[Dorateen]

Negative integers, as used in the armor class and THAC0 systems of pre-3rd edition D&D, triggers casuals. Counting backward is hard.

 

[undecaf]

It's only about 'math' when people start sperging for a statistically -da bestest ultimate- characterbuild, which should not be a requirement (even if it might be helpful) for a game in the first place. Outside of that, it is nearly always enough to know that bigger is better. I think one of the chief issues with newbies of today for whom the genre gets ruined by oversimplified/overstreamlined design decisions, is the initial wealth of options and the lack of info on what those options might mean. That can be helepd without flushing the whole system down the shitter.

 

[Lurker King]

Negative integers, as used in the armor class and THAC0 systems of pre-3rd edition D&D, triggers casuals. Counting backward is hard.

The problem is that most people deem games as a cheap form of escapism. They don’t want to think about hit formulas, build combinations, THACOs, etc; especially if these decisions are made during character building or after failed attempts and restarts. It’s that simple. It really wouldn’t be an exaggeration to suggest that most cRPG developers that still try to make something that resemble cRPGs (Obsidian, Harebrained, etc.) and their fans are storyfags that also frown on the numbers element. The very fact that you will find codexers complaining about big manuals is telling. Genuine cRPG players are an endangered species.

 

[Black Angel]

Vault Dweller did a great job in explaining Age of Decadence's mechanics here and in his forum. Also, both games punish you harsh if you think you can do any build freely without understand what is going on, so for the people that enjoy learning the mechanics of the game, this motivates them.

I know, but they didn't have obligatory big ass manuals people have to read like Sigourn said, but they do expect players to properly read every description provided by hovering the cursor over stats and skills. Of course, maybe Sigourn was talking about older RPGs. But since he's talking about mechanics and specifically character creation + start of the game, games like Fallout doesn't have overly complex mechanics which required you to read the manuals.

If we want to discuss this thoroughly for AoD and Underrail fairly, AoD while being pretty clear with the working numbers of the mechanics, Underrail actually had a lot of subtlety and hidden formulas that's sometimes hinted at only by feats or some other information like dialogues. While AoD was pretty transparent with stuff like THCs and CS formulas of each type of attack, Underrail only hinted at an increase in THC while standing in dark tiles aiming at targets close to some source of light with the Ambush feat.

Even then, with AoD pretty merciful with explanation of the mechanics in-game, there are still a lot of people who needed help (and VD with the team kindly responded to such people) and sadly fucking casuals and retards giving it negative reviews when it's simply not for them, instead of legit giving criticism. Imagine Underrail where Styg whom not seen regularly responding to inane whining of retards complaining about not being able to score 70-80% THC (although Underrail had pretty clear problems like lack of out-of-combat running feature).

 

[Lurker King]

I know, but they[AoD and UR] didn't have obligatory big ass manuals people have to read like Sigourn said, but they do expect players to properly read every description provided by hovering the cursor over stats and skills.

Which is the same thing. Lots of reading and preparation in order to master the basics of gameplay.

Of course, maybe Sigourn was talking about older RPGs. But since he's talking about mechanics and specifically character creation + start of the game, games like Fallout doesn't have overly complex mechanics which required you to read the manuals.

They are overly complex if you are not used to cRPGs. You have to read the descriptions of each stat, skill, perk, and figure it out their combinations before you start playing the game. It is as if a person can’t get into chess because she is bored by all the rules and abstract thinking and people start arguing that chess require too much information for newcomers and should be easier like checkers.

 

[Delterius]

This is a pointless discussion. All games are overly complex if you aren't used to their genre. All genres, not just RPGs, can be dumbed down to appeal to that market. Its not about numbers per-se, its about concepts and content. There's nothing advanced about the math of Fallout's character creation. The attributes even come with an adjective to its side that describes your decisions. What a completely new player can't do is make informed decisions. Those come with time, trial and error. Only outright handholding can make newfangles behave as more experienced players.

Case in point, Skyrim isn't just a bad RPG. Its a bad Action and an even worse Adventure game as well. And it basically appeals to everyone since you can be braindead and still succeed at Skyrim.

 

[Atlantico]

My point is that "hardcore" RPGs are a niche of a niche, and they will never sell as well as less "number heavy" games like shooters, modern Bioware games or hiking simulators. You, on the other hand, are trying to argue against math

All right, let's hold that point then and forget everything you wrote before, because none of that has anything to do with your current point. You're mostly arguing with yourself.

 

[KyivAfter12am]

My point is that "hardcore" RPGs are a niche of a niche, and they will never sell as well as less "number heavy" games like shooters, modern Bioware games or hiking simulators. You, on the other hand, are trying to argue against math

All right, let's hold that point then and forget everything you wrote before, because none of that has anything to do with your current point. You're mostly arguing with yourself.

Do you even remember what I wrote before? Sounds like you didn't pay much attention to it.

 

[Atlantico]

Do you even remember what I wrote before? Sounds like you didn't pay much attention to it.

Sure do and paid as much attention to it as you did.

 

[KyivAfter12am]

Do you even remember what I wrote before? Sounds like you didn't pay much attention to it.

Sure do and paid as much attention to it as you did.

Then you must remember my original post:

Could you cite an RPG that suffered in sales for being too complex?

All of them? This is why RPGs sell worse than shooters.

And my more recent post with the point you graciously agreed to hold:

What is your point even now, it keeps changing every time you make a post.

My point is that "hardcore" RPGs are a niche of a niche, and they will never sell as well as less "number heavy" games like shooters, modern Bioware games or hiking simulators. You, on the other hand, are trying to argue against math