Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Azarkon vs the Cult of Hardcore RPG Fatalism - can hardcore RPGs sell better?

Damned Registrations

Furry Weeaboo Nazi Nihilist
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
14,980
Spending all your souls constantly in the souls series isn't necessarily a good idea though. You never know when you'll encounter a new vendor with something you'll desperately want (like new spells or smithing material) so it pays off big time to hoard souls. It's a risk/reward mechanic, and for most people, it results in some serious setbacks. There's also the issue of running out of consumables like the lightning resin or firebombs; which can be a big setback if you got 90% of the way through a boss fight and now have to do it all over again only without the crutch you just used. And of course losing max hp to being hollowed. So no, you can't just arbitrarily zerg rush everything the whole time without suffering penalties.
 

Infinitron

I post news
Staff Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
97,228
Codex Year of the Donut Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire Pathfinder: Kingmaker Pathfinder: Wrath I'm very into cock and ball torture I helped put crap in Monomyth
Just listen to the fans.
I just don't get it. I can't get very far in Dragon Age Origins or KOTOR 1 for that matter. People say hard mode is too easy and I'm getting crushed on normal. I tried to find a guide online but came up empty. I click, I wait, I see my character get hit a million times, I die. I even try to move out of the way of a telegraphed attack but since the game is based on a dice roll it already registered as 'hit' so I still get hit. Help please
Im not expert since im pretty bad at dragon age myself but the combat is based nearly entirely on stats. You don't dodge attacks by moving out of the way or block attacks by pressing a button to raise your shield.

It's based around building a party with good stats that work well together and then during the battle positioning yourself correctly and prioritizing enemies and such. You usually want to get someone who can tank damage followed by someone who can deal damage with someone who can then heal your team and so on.

This is silly. Millions upon millions of WoW players have gotten this, more people than have ever bought any single Bioware game (and possibly all of them combined).
 

Damned Registrations

Furry Weeaboo Nazi Nihilist
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
14,980
The main difference there is that in an MMO (or any online game really) you're always drowning in people willing to tell you how and why you fucked up, and where to go and learn the right way to do things. Nobody is around to tell you these things if you've never controlled a party of adventurers before and you decide to venture out into the world with a party of 6 thieves because that sounds totally cool and makes sense intuitively (why would priests and thieves and knights work together?)
 

Celerity

Takes 1337 hours to realise it's shit.
Village Idiot Possibly Retarded
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Messages
1,096
Spending all your souls constantly in the souls series isn't necessarily a good idea though. You never know when you'll encounter a new vendor with something you'll desperately want (like new spells or smithing material) so it pays off big time to hoard souls. It's a risk/reward mechanic, and for most people, it results in some serious setbacks. There's also the issue of running out of consumables like the lightning resin or firebombs; which can be a big setback if you got 90% of the way through a boss fight and now have to do it all over again only without the crutch you just used. And of course losing max hp to being hollowed. So no, you can't just arbitrarily zerg rush everything the whole time without suffering penalties.

Oh hey, a merchant. And I'm not using guides so you know what I'll do? I'll use these nice banked soul items in my inventory, and buy what I need from him using those. Or I somehow ignored this and died with [insert massive soul count]? Well that's what these Rings of Sacrifice are for as a safeguard. And if I fail both of those, every Souls game has a means of easily grinding massive soul counts quickly so...

All of these are fairly unrealistic scenarios in the first place because as much as the Souls series is about exploration and discovery they're some spoilery and spoiler seeking mother fuckers, such that short of complete media blackout AND keeping yourself permanently in offline mode so you don't have messages on the ground absolutely everywhere you'll have everything explained in advance anyways. Even if you never read them message on ground near wall = obvious secret door is obvious.
 

Azarkon

Arcane
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,989
The main difference there is that in an MMO (or any online game really) you're always drowning in people willing to tell you how and why you fucked up, and where to go and learn the right way to do things. Nobody is around to tell you these things if you've never controlled a party of adventurers before and you decide to venture out into the world with a party of 6 thieves because that sounds totally cool and makes sense intuitively (why would priests and thieves and knights work together?)

I'm pretty sure anyone who bitches on the internet about how hard the game is, knows how to use it to find a guide. Posts to the effect of "this game is too hard" on Steam represent a small % of vocal players who rather bitch than help themselves. The developer mistake was/is to think that this segment of the gaming community actually stood/stands for the majority, leading them to make games easier and easier, until finally, we get DA:I.
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,653
I'm pretty sure anyone who bitches on the internet about how hard the game is, knows how to use it to find a guide. Posts to the effect of "this game is too hard" on Steam represent a small % of vocal players who rather bitch than help themselves. The developer mistake was/is to think that this segment of the gaming community actually stood/stands for the majority, leading them to make games easier and easier, until finally, we get DA:I.

Bioware actually has had access to telemetric data since DA:O so they know very well how people play their games.

The people who know how to turn that shit off would be the minority.
 

Azarkon

Arcane
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,989
Just because they have access to the data, does not indicate they made valuable conclusions from it. Both DA:I and DA 2 sold worse than DA:O, AFAIK, and every game in the series sold worse than Witcher 3. That shows Bioware has only learned how to make worse selling games from their "data."
 

Celerity

Takes 1337 hours to realise it's shit.
Village Idiot Possibly Retarded
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Messages
1,096
And just because they have the data doesn't mean they read or understand it at all. See: Derpest Dungeon devs very confused at the notion their game is just a damage spam fest and more confused at the notion that people favored items that boost offense over "obscure mathematical advantages" (read: bonuses on stats that don't matter with drawbacks that more than outweigh the benefits).

There's also no quality filters on that data. Just try looking at what people of skill level x or higher do. Those sort of stats exist in games with viable telemetric systems (usually online and/or competitive ones) but here it just goes in this one generic average pile.
 

Telengard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
1,621
Location
The end of every place
I'm pretty sure anyone who bitches on the internet about how hard the game is, knows how to use it to find a guide. Posts to the effect of "this game is too hard" on Steam represent a small % of vocal players who rather bitch than help themselves. The developer mistake was/is to think that this segment of the gaming community actually stood/stands for the majority, leading them to make games easier and easier, until finally, we get DA:I.
The BSN is a treasure trove, by the way, if you don't care about the loss of Sanity points.

http://forum.bioware.com/topic/1238...rd-but-wont-go-easy-tips-to-kick-butt-inside/

Yes, the question of why Normal was so hard was asked so much they had to sticky it.

Also, never forget Laidlaw's law - after DA:O complaints, they don't try to predict how players will play when designing encounters, they bring in a horde of playtesters, analyse the results, and then massage the challenge to their vision of how the combat should play out. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/for...ains-Why-Dragon-Age-II-Is-Easier-Than-Origins
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,653
Just because they have access to the data, does not indicate they made valuable conclusions from it. Both DA:I and DA 2 sold worse than DA:O, AFAIK, and every game in the series sold worse than Witcher 3. That shows Bioware has only learned how to make worse selling games from their "data."

DA2 was a rushed gamble of a slam dunk, of course it wasn't going to sell better.

There are no reliable sales figures for DA:I, but it seems to have done well for itself based on the lengthy patch/DLC support and the existence of a goty edition.
 

kwanzabot

Cipher
Shitposter
Joined
Aug 29, 2009
Messages
597
dragon age sux man F U C K i played dragon age organs and they made me take some emo slut with me F U C K i hate games that force me to take emo slut with me so i stopped playing it ^.^
 

Azarkon

Arcane
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,989
There are no reliable sales figures for DA:I, but it seems to have done well for itself based on the lengthy patch/DLC support and the existence of a goty edition.

There are no "reliable" sales figures for DA:I because they refused to release official sales figures, which is already a red flag. Judging by all available counts, the sales of DA:I were in the low 4 millions, which is below DA:O and millions below Witcher 3. Add to this the fact that the developers were pulled off of the franchise - not exactly a practice their corporate owners are known for, unless the franchise fails to perform to target - and it's basically guaranteed to have been less than desired, regardless of what the stock-holders' PR department says.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-no-new-dragon-age-in-2015-but-huge-opportunity-/1100-6425196/

When was the last time this corporation ever failed to milk a fat cow? They'd have announced the next Dragon Age game in 2015, had it actually done that well.
 
Last edited:

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,653
There are no reliable sales figures for DA:I, but it seems to have done well for itself based on the lengthy patch/DLC support and the existence of a goty edition.

There are no "reliable" sales figures for DA:I because they refused to release official sales figures, which is already a red flag. Judging by all available counts, the sales of DA:I were in the low 4 millions, which is below DA:O and millions below Witcher 3. Add to this the fact that the developers were pulled off of the franchise - not exactly a practice their corporate owners are known for, unless the franchise fails to perform to target - and it's basically guaranteed to have been less than desired, regardless of what the stock-holders' PR department says.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-no-new-dragon-age-in-2015-but-huge-opportunity-/1100-6425196/

When was the last time this corporation ever failed to milk a fat cow? They'd have announced the next Dragon Age game in 2015, had it actually done that well.

DA:O has had six years to sell. As I recall, the initial shipment for DA:O was about 3 million, so 4 million after a year is pretty good.

They've already said that Patrick Weekes will be the lead writer of DA going forward. Gaider was tired of it after working on it for over a decade of his life and now he's on the new IP. The next DA will probably come out after that and Andromeda so it isn't necessary to announce anything now; the fact that they said Weekes is taking over is enough.
 

Azarkon

Arcane
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,989
There are no reliable sales figures for DA:I, but it seems to have done well for itself based on the lengthy patch/DLC support and the existence of a goty edition.

There are no "reliable" sales figures for DA:I because they refused to release official sales figures, which is already a red flag. Judging by all available counts, the sales of DA:I were in the low 4 millions, which is below DA:O and millions below Witcher 3. Add to this the fact that the developers were pulled off of the franchise - not exactly a practice their corporate owners are known for, unless the franchise fails to perform to target - and it's basically guaranteed to have been less than desired, regardless of what the stock-holders' PR department says.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-no-new-dragon-age-in-2015-but-huge-opportunity-/1100-6425196/

When was the last time this corporation ever failed to milk a fat cow? They'd have announced the next Dragon Age game in 2015, had it actually done that well.

DA:O has had six years to sell. As I recall, the initial shipment for DA:O was about 3 million, so 4 million after a year is pretty good.

They've already said that Patrick Weekes will be the lead writer of DA going forward. Gaider was tired of it after working on it for over a decade of his life and now he's on the new IP. The next DA will probably come out after that and Andromeda so it isn't necessary to announce anything now; the fact that they said Weekes is taking over is enough.

The initial shipment for DA:I was about 3 million, as well. In fact, DA:I sold about as well as DA:O according to what's out there, three months after release, but the drop off was quicker, as DA:I had a huge launch week. Regardless, even selling as well as DA:O isn't much of an achievement, and it doesn't change the argument - Bioware made DA 2 immediately after DA:O, and the game was a massive failure in terms of both customer satisfaction and sales, so the "data" obviously wasn't all that useful. With DA:I, http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-inquisition user ratings tell the same story. Both have received a tremendous amount of negative reviews from practically all mainstream sites that track user reviews, when put besides DA:O, so it's not though we're talking about only the Codex's niche opinions. Again, access to user data is nice, but doesn't automatically improve your games. The public opinion, insofar as it's capable of being measured, looks to be that DA:I was not as big of a failure as Dragon Age II, but both are worse than DA:O.
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,653
The initial shipment for DA:I was about 3 million, as well. In fact, DA:I sold about as well as DA:O according to what's out there, three months after release, but the drop off was quicker, as DA:I had a huge launch week. Regardless, even selling as well as DA:O isn't much of an achievement, and it doesn't change the argument - Bioware made DA 2 immediately after DA:O, and the game was a massive failure in terms of both customer satisfaction and sales, so the "data" obviously wasn't all that useful. With DA:I, http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/dragon-age-inquisition user ratings tell the same story. Both have received a tremendous amount of negative reviews from practically all mainstream sites that track user reviews, when put besides DA:O, so it's not though we're talking about only the Codex's niche opinions. Again, access to user data is nice, but doesn't automatically improve your games. The public opinion, insofar as it's capable of being measured, looks to be that DA:I was not as big of a failure as Dragon Age II, but both are worse than DA:O.

Bioware has a loud vocal minority of players who are guaranteed to play and hate everything they do, this has been their status quo since DA2. Their games keep selling their usual amount though and that's not changing any time soon. I remember back in 2011/12 when Bioware anti-fans were all fixated with EA's falling stock, yet look at it now. People who bought shares back then have to be damn pleased with it now.
 

Damned Registrations

Furry Weeaboo Nazi Nihilist
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
14,980
All of these are fairly unrealistic scenarios in the first place because as much as the Souls series is about exploration and discovery they're some spoilery and spoiler seeking mother fuckers, such that short of complete media blackout AND keeping yourself permanently in offline mode so you don't have messages on the ground absolutely everywhere you'll have everything explained in advance anyways. Even if you never read them message on ground near wall = obvious secret door is obvious.
I mean, that's exactly how I played. It was obvious it'd be the best way to play after playing through Demon's Souls.

Wizardry 4 isn't very hardcore either if you're following a walkthrough and looking at maps.
 

Celerity

Takes 1337 hours to realise it's shit.
Village Idiot Possibly Retarded
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Messages
1,096
All of these are fairly unrealistic scenarios in the first place because as much as the Souls series is about exploration and discovery they're some spoilery and spoiler seeking mother fuckers, such that short of complete media blackout AND keeping yourself permanently in offline mode so you don't have messages on the ground absolutely everywhere you'll have everything explained in advance anyways. Even if you never read them message on ground near wall = obvious secret door is obvious.
I mean, that's exactly how I played. It was obvious it'd be the best way to play after playing through Demon's Souls.

Wizardry 4 isn't very hardcore either if you're following a walkthrough and looking at maps.

Same here but how many actually do that?

Wizardry 4 would still have instant kill spells everywhere and general high difficulty even if you knew about the various hidden fuck yous in advance.

That was a tangential point though. The main one was that Souls is more about persistence than overcoming challenge, as there is practically no penalty for failure (and indeed, stupid people will keep dying from the same shit for hours before winning anyways).
 

Trashos

Arcane
Joined
Dec 28, 2015
Messages
3,413
I don't think we are going to reach useful conclusions by comparing DAO with DAI. The only game relevant to our issue is DAO, because it was a few design decisions away from being a really good rpg. Later EA decided to drop the Baldur's Gate feel and go after the Skyrim crowd, but that does not mean that the DAO fans wouldn't buy a proper rpg. (I am not after the Skyrim crowd, I am after the DAO crowd!)


Just listen to the fans.
I'm having a problem with this game

Even on easy the game is just too hard to allow you to advance without multiple retries.

etc-etc

So OK, I accept that a lot of people found the DAO combat difficult. This may be solved by having several difficulty levels below Normal, so that people already feel good about themselves when they play on Normal. Civ does this successfully. A Story Mode can help too. If you give casuals a kick-ass experience on easier levels, I doubt your sales will be hurt. DAO was by no means an easy game, some boss battles were pretty hardcore (e.g. Jarvia).

I also accept that many people played DAO because of the hot chicks and other popamole features. Personally I don't mind that too much, let some popamole features in (for commercially ambitious titles) as long as the hardcore elements are still there. Casuals get what they want, the hardcore crowd get what we want, everybody is happy. The question I am attacking is whether hardcore elements are compatible with huge financial success, not whether they alone suffice.

So I claim the following. The potential financial success of hybrid hardcore titles (like DAO) is (softly) capped by DAO. DAO had several hardcore elements, such as CnC (interestingly, it had more CnC than Baldur's Gate) and some difficult boss battles. It also had several flaws (e.g., linearity, skill trees). I don't think anybody is claiming that it succeeded because of its linearity, that was probably a limitation of their engine and not a goal. Still, the character creation/development issue is a thorn. Solve that and you have a winner, methinks.
 

Damned Registrations

Furry Weeaboo Nazi Nihilist
Joined
Feb 24, 2007
Messages
14,980
That was a tangential point though. The main one was that Souls is more about persistence than overcoming challenge, as there is practically no penalty for failure (and indeed, stupid people will keep dying from the same shit for hours before winning anyways).

The same can be said of pretty much any game though. The only exceptions being a handful of games with arcade roots that are especially stingy with continues. Mario may set you back to square one after you fuck up like 20 times, but even square one is, at most, 25 minutes away from where you died. For most of the game it's much closer, so you're really giving up less time by dying 6 times in Mario than you would be by dying 6 times in DaS. So your definition of 'hardcore' is basically being restricted to such a tiny portion of games it's of little use to begin with. A broader definition that separates games like Dark Souls (where a new player will struggle frequently) from games like Oblivion (where a new player will be frequently bored by lack of challenge and depth) is more useful.

As far as how many people played DaS without being spoiled, that number is obviously impossible to pin down. It's worth noting though, that obviously the spoiled players are going to be way more visible on forums and such than players like us, who want neither to spoil or be spoiled about these games.
 

Celerity

Takes 1337 hours to realise it's shit.
Village Idiot Possibly Retarded
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Messages
1,096
Oblivion isn't modern hardcore though. And we're just going back and forth about this, so can we just accept the term is being redefined/diluted and move on? Because it's not just Xulima. You can go on any modern hardcore game and pretty much every negative review will be some variation of "The game didn't hold my hand, BAD THING HAPPENED, I now blame the game." There will also be a distressingly high level of such complaints. It could be Xulima and the Ogre/giant shrooms, it could be Underail and the hoppers... it's always the same pattern. Early game RL Int check = Failure = noobrage. And then they act like the game is so amazing and hardcore and requires perfection when (on the lower difficulties at least) you just hold down the attack button, same as any triple A mass market drivel "game".

Hell, it's not even hardcore games or RPGs getting diluted, it's all of them. Compare something like Mario 1 (NES) with Super Mario Galaxy 2 (WiiU?). Look at how many modern games literally have a "Let the AI beat this stage for you" option. Because 300 lives is not enough... :decline:
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
For a long time, Bioware has had a data interpretation problem, where they:
(a) Correctly see that reducing depth will enable players that were otherwise struggling to enjoy the game;
(b) Fail to realise that doing so will bore another group of players to tears such that they don't buy the game; and
(c) Fail to realise that the mindset of play-testers isn't the same as fans of the genre, or even of new players who have forked over $$$ and are sitting down to immerse themselves in a game instead of doing their shitty 9-5.

I.e. they count 'this is too hard, I don't know what to do' as lost sales, but not 'this is too easy, I'm bored'. Until recently, that was indeed fair enough, as the second lot of players would still buy because they had nowhere else to go.
 

DeN DarK

Educated
Joined
Dec 23, 2015
Messages
54
Location
Whitestone One, First Throne, Forty Forties
Anyway, let me restate my position to make it more clear.

When the gaming industry was young and sales were fairly low for all genres, there were plenty of RPGs made by PnP geeks for geeks. Slowly, computers became household items, greatly expanding the market. Games started selling more and more, action games like Doom leading the way, while RPGs fell behind. By the time computers went mainstream, RPGs went nearly extinct because the returns on investment were very low compared to shooters and RTSs. There was not a single success story there.

So we went from "RPGs are dead" to "long love action games with stats!" Every time a proper RPG would be made it would sell fuck all, whereas the topseller crown always, always went to other games. It's no wonder that only two companies survived this trek - Bethesda and Bioware. Obsidian started strong as Bio Junior but ended up working for food - Dungeon Siege 3, Stick of Truth - probably their top selling game, World of Tanks. Eventually they took their cookies to KS, making a spiritual successor not to games that made them famous but to a game that made Bio rich.

Thus we can assume either that "pure" RPGs are poor sellers or look for excuses: if only Troika games were less buggy, if only they were all Dee an Dee, if only they have some savvy marketing and flashy trailers. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that no real RPG has ever become a top seller. Surely if Bioware were make a real RPG it would sell like hotcakes.

I think it isn't wrong. RPGs not so successful. Still HUGE crowd really want RPGs with C&C & good writing and nice char system. Maybe it is less then crowd of shooter lovers - but still not only 30000 who bought AoD or 30000 who bought Underrail.
Most problems people have with indie-RPGs - is graphics. I myself enjoyed Geneforge, AoD, Dead State and Underrail. Still then I recommend games to some friends - they try AoD and Dead State (and finished both games) - but they do not try Underrail and Geneforge. Sad for them? Yes, of course.
But sad for devs too. Because with slightly better engine - sales will be better. How many people didn't try AoD because it have mediocre engine? It may be nice good number. And we don't tell about fraud here. You sell game - not pretty picture. But with pretty picture game will be sold in larger quantities.
If we speak about engines like Unity - it is not AAA-pretty. But pretty enough to be good start for many players to try game.
What I'm saying: graphics don't make RPGs. For most people here they do not matter - but for most people OUT THERE graphics is matter for RPGs. Most indie RPGs have many strong points - but you cannot sold them good enought without some steps to the (common) people. + nice ads of course. Market is flexiable thing - let the people see goodness of RPGs, convert them - and sales will be better.

What the point in telling that true RPGs are bad sellers? Even if it is true - where it is lead us? We need to shift that. Tell friends about good RPGs and e.t.c. But good RPGs must start to appeal to people feelings too - or devs never have good sales.

About Troika - don't forget market was very different back then. Steam didn't exist in that times, in most countries piracy was most common way to have games. Even excluding that market still was very different by number of players, console abundance and many other things.
 

DeN DarK

Educated
Joined
Dec 23, 2015
Messages
54
Location
Whitestone One, First Throne, Forty Forties
Oblivion isn't modern hardcore though. And we're just going back and forth about this, so can we just accept the term is being redefined/diluted and move on? Because it's not just Xulima. You can go on any modern hardcore game and pretty much every negative review will be some variation of "The game didn't hold my hand, BAD THING HAPPENED, I now blame the game." There will also be a distressingly high level of such complaints. It could be Xulima and the Ogre/giant shrooms, it could be Underail and the hoppers... it's always the same pattern. Early game RL Int check = Failure = noobrage. And then they act like the game is so amazing and hardcore and requires perfection when (on the lower difficulties at least) you just hold down the attack button, same as any triple A mass market drivel "game".

Hell, it's not even hardcore games or RPGs getting diluted, it's all of them. Compare something like Mario 1 (NES) with Super Mario Galaxy 2 (WiiU?). Look at how many modern games literally have a "Let the AI beat this stage for you" option. Because 300 lives is not enough... :decline:

All problems in definition of hardcore. Take games like Arcanum or Fallout. It is old-school. But is it hardcore?
Then make enemies fatter and fatter, cut journal out of the game, cut out map, make save possiable only on the quit, make only 1 type of build successful for game and in the end make impossiable challenge for that build - is it hardcore already? Oh! I forget - take away graphics from Fallouts and Arcanum. Make it 8bit. Now thats HARDCORE! YEAH! How much old-fags here will love this classic on that terms? Not so many I bet.

All I trying to say: Hardcore is very broad term. It may mean hard but interesting gameplay or it can mean bad design decisions.

Dark Souls in comparison with modern market is hardcore. But not because it is hardest game ever. It harder than other games in jenre at the moment. It isn't cRPG and don't have anything common with Xulima, AoD and Underrail. But it isn't Skyrim or DA:I too. Don't have sense to compare DS with Mario or ADOM or Xulima or Skyrim. It is different thing.
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,653
man if dead state can sell 60000 copies anything can sell lmao

That had two things going for it, zombies and the name value of Brian Mitsoda.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom