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

[Celerity]

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...

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.

I think everyone knew I wasn't talking about bad design or false advertisement when I said hardcore.

 

[kwanzabot]

lmao u want hardcore? cut off your left hand and try to beat any wizardry game before you bleed out kid


if u cant do it its because u were born after 1990

 

[DeN DarK]

I think everyone knew I wasn't talking about bad design or false advertisement when I said hardcore.

Yep.
But still hardcore is too wide term. For some - thats the things I describe. Different challenges player have from design - not from game.
Lets see. Underrail don't have map in any form - it is hardcore. SitS don't have journal - and thats hardcore too. Of course it isn't only things that make that games hardcore - but... for some people hthink they are. Because back in early 90-es it was so. I don't discuss graphics here because I have doubts indie teams have possibility to make better graphics. And I love that games actually (except Deep Caverns) - but not for these things.

Lets say Dark Souls is more punishing then other mass-games on that market in similar jenre a.t.m. For starters it have only one difficulty. No story mode, no casual mode e.t.c.

 

[Lurker King]

No because Arcanum's gameplay is horrible and start of the game is very slow and doesn't really have good hooks in it, it doesn't really get going till you get to Tarant, which doesn't translate well into streaming/youtubing, but I've played Age of Decadence with different classes/starts to some extent and it IMO would work great with the streaming showing off and explaining the idea behind the classes/starts/builds that it's meant to be replayed with different styles.

You begin with a cinematic explosion of a flying ship, bunch of wolfs to kill and a city to explore. If you consider what most cRPGs have to offer, that is pretty conventional and easy to present to players. On the other hand, the setting (art, soundtrack, etc.) was (and still is) unusual for most players. Instead of the same D&D tropes, we have a mix of Victorian and Industrial Revolution themes. Too bad that they don’t sell well, even if we put trash mobs and billions of quests in it.

UndeRail suffers from the same problem as Arcanum, it takes hour or two at least to get to see how different builds work with exception of maybe melee and psi, which makes it hard to get into the game for attention deficit people, and makes it harder to show off. IMO D:OS does this really well which makes it easier to draw in the crowd outside of the 'hardcore' gamers.

It doesn’t take hours. Consider Underrail, for instance. You just need to discuss how the system works, show the stats, the list of feats, load two different builds with some hours in it, etc. The problem it’s that most players find this type of stuff boring. They don’t want discussions about game features or reactivity, they want action with cool graphics. Neither AoD, nor Underrail, have that. True, if they were made by established developers, and especially if they were co-op games with MMO graphics, they would sell more, but then again, they wouldn’t be as good as they are if they had a co-op mechanics.

 

[Lurker King]

But still hardcore is too wide term.

That is curious. Sometimes we use “hardcore” as a synonymy of “difficult” because what we consider proper cRPGs are too difficult for causals. A causal could consider BG2 hardcore, given his assumptions about the level of difficult that most causals nowadays can handle. That would explain why some journos keep saying that PoE is an oldschool hardcore game.

 

[Beastro]

This doesn't seem to be true as far as I can tell - I've seen a lot of lamenting that anything that doesn't fit into those generic categories (Tolkien, Europe, Generic Sci-Fantasy and Post-Apoc) take a hit in sales - if you try to make an RPG inspired by say Feudal China or Medieval India, you might as well be committing financial suicide.

I'm certain AoD probably took a hit for choosing "Rome inspired" as its setting because it doesn't fit nicely into a category

What the heck is this BS? Rome being as different from the Western norm as India or Rome?

Roman culture is your go-to template if you're not interested in a Medieval setting because it's still a Western one and all it's aesthetics are familiar and appealing to that audience. You've got a ready made culture and language to ape that's well known but still different enough from modern Western society to be appealing in ways not even classic Greece can match because it's well known elements are off set by other ones like a lesser known language, and one with it's own lettering that is impenetrable at a glance.

As much as it's annoying to have the same settings over and over, one has to keep in mind that they reflect someone about the target audiences culture that is rightfully interested in those aspects. It's for the same reason the China has tons of Medieval and Ancient Chinese dramas and has as convoluted plot as Western film does at times like the recent movie about Romans trying to invade China.

Now, as much as AoD tried to do something different it still played it safe in that the good old pagan Imperial Roman setting was used when the setting was clearly based on the Byzantine era and its conflicts with Persia, a setting that is largely unknown to Western gaming audiences besides history nuts who play the hell out of Paradox games.

 

[Beastro]

UndeRail suffers from the same problem as Arcanum, it takes hour or two at least to get to see how different builds work with exception of maybe melee and psi, which makes it hard to get into the game for attention deficit people, and makes it harder to show off. IMO D:OS does this really well which makes it easier to draw in the crowd outside of the 'hardcore' gamers.

I just got done watching Gamehoarders half ogre play through, and excluding his entertaining voicing of the dialogue, the big thing in Arcanums favour is the presentation and writing at the start that gets you interested in seeing more of the game and putting up with the slow beginning. The other factor is that voice acting will never save a game, but good sprinkle of it helps and I've always liked how Virgil's voicing was handled since much of your discussions with him carry those opening hours.

The issue with Underrail is the writing not only doesn't stand out but so does the look of the dialogue trees. That isn't a big fault for Underrail because its strengths are directed at the player and getting them into the mood of the game and it doesn't translate well into good Youtube watching material.

 

[vonAchdorf]

Roman culture is your go-to template if you're not interested in a Medieval setting because it's still a Western one and all it's aesthetics are familiar and appealing to that audience. You've got a ready made culture and language to ape that's well known but still different enough from modern Western society to be appealing in ways not even classic Greece can match because it's well known elements are off set by other ones like a lesser known language, and one with it's own lettering that is impenetrable at a glance.

In strategy games maybe. For a go-to template, there aren't really that many games set in the Ancient Roman era which aren't strategy games (and with a large distance actiony games). For RPG titles, there is Nethergate and Gladius.

 

[Beastro]

Roman culture is your go-to template if you're not interested in a Medieval setting because it's still a Western one and all it's aesthetics are familiar and appealing to that audience. You've got a ready made culture and language to ape that's well known but still different enough from modern Western society to be appealing in ways not even classic Greece can match because it's well known elements are off set by other ones like a lesser known language, and one with it's own lettering that is impenetrable at a glance.

In strategy games maybe. For a go-to template, there aren't really that many games set in the Ancient Roman era which aren't strategy games (and with a large distance actiony games). For RPG titles, there is Nethergate and Gladius.

Off the top of my head there's the TES Imperials and the many facets of their culture lifted straight from Rome.

 

[vonAchdorf]

Off the top of my head there's the TES Imperials and the many facets of their culture lifted straight from Rome.

They also have samurai ninjas in cloud temples. Coming from Arena and Daggerfall, I was never really fond of the Roman style they introduced for the Imperials, so I try to ignore that aspect. Also the world isn't really Roman, but mostly Fantasy MA. If you look at Oblivion, located in the Imperial heartland, fantasy trumped Roman visually by far.

 

[Beastro]

Off the top of my head there's the TES Imperials and the many facets of their culture lifted straight from Rome.

They also have samurai ninjas in cloud temples. Coming from Arena and Daggerfall, I was never really fond of the Roman style they introduced for the Imperials, so I try to ignore that aspect. Also the world isn't really Roman, but mostly Fantasy MA. If you look at Oblivion, located in the Imperial heartland, fantasy trumped Roman visually by far.

And my point was how easy to grab Roman culture is to quickly create a fictional civilization around.

Your opening quip also proves something else, that beyond the facets of European cultures and civilization Japan is the closest one gets to a entirely foreign culture that is readily recognized by Westerners. Slap in samurai or ninjas and you don't need to explain anything about them, do the same with Amerindian, African or Eurasian facets and you'll have most people scratching their heads over it.

 

[vonAchdorf]

I think (stylized, idealized) Amerindian isn't too alien, because it's part of the western historical and fictional canon. It's often used for wood elven cultures.

 

[Jarpie]

No because Arcanum's gameplay is horrible and start of the game is very slow and doesn't really have good hooks in it, it doesn't really get going till you get to Tarant, which doesn't translate well into streaming/youtubing, but I've played Age of Decadence with different classes/starts to some extent and it IMO would work great with the streaming showing off and explaining the idea behind the classes/starts/builds that it's meant to be replayed with different styles.

You begin with a cinematic explosion of a flying ship, bunch of wolfs to kill and a city to explore. If you consider what most cRPGs have to offer, that is pretty conventional and easy to present to players. On the other hand, the setting (art, soundtrack, etc.) was (and still is) unusual for most players. Instead of the same D&D tropes, we have a mix of Victorian and Industrial Revolution themes. Too bad that they don’t sell well, even if we put trash mobs and billions of quests in it..

The problem with Arcanum's start is that the attack and the crashlanding doesn't really play into it much further than the very beginning and it doesn't hook you into the game/story/setting. Arcanum's setting is very interesting and has/had potential to draw in the intriqued players but another problem with the beginning and the first town is that it doesn't really express/show it IMO.

UndeRail suffers from the same problem as Arcanum, it takes hour or two at least to get to see how different builds work with exception of maybe melee and psi, which makes it hard to get into the game for attention deficit people, and makes it harder to show off. IMO D:OS does this really well which makes it easier to draw in the crowd outside of the 'hardcore' gamers.

It doesn’t take hours. Consider Underrail, for instance. You just need to discuss how the system works, show the stats, the list of feats, load two different builds with some hours in it, etc. The problem it’s that most players find this type of stuff boring. They don’t want discussions about game features or reactivity, they want action with cool graphics. Neither AoD, nor Underrail, have that. True, if they were made by established developers, and especially if they were co-op games with MMO graphics, they would sell more, but then again, they wouldn’t be as good as they are if they had a co-op mechanics.

I didn't say hours, I said hour or two, or at least meant to say that. In my experience people tend to think that they don't want to put effort into learning systems etc but if you get them hooked, they'll do that. I think Styg probably wanted to make the beginning of UnderRail so that you get into the first mission relatively quickly, but giving player straight access to assault rifles etc. wouldn't probably be the best choice.

I disagree that AoD isn't suitable for streaming or youtube, I think it would suit those quite well due how it has different starts for different classes, and that IMO is potentially great hooking point to get people interested in the game even if the graphics aren't top-notch for popamolers. I've learned and seen that people usually doesn't really know what they want or what they'll get interested in unless given the right kind of "pushing".

I don't think D:OS sold so many copies just because of the WoW graphics and co-op mechanics, I think it sold so well because Sven/Larian put shitload of work into promoting the game in youtube, streams etc where Sven went to show off their game, and it gave it a lot of visibility. I can understand that Vault Dweller doesn't have the time nor resources to work on that kind of promotion, which afaik requires a lot of work.

 

[DeN DarK]

But still hardcore is too wide term.

That is curious. Sometimes we use “hardcore” as a synonymy of “difficult” because what we consider proper cRPGs are too difficult for causals. A causal could consider BG2 hardcore, given his assumptions about the level of difficult that most causals nowadays can handle. That would explain why some journos keep saying that PoE is an oldschool hardcore game.

In matters of difficult - I finished PoE with triple crown solo and it was very difficult. Still it is really player-friendly game - I can recommend it to the non-player game as first game on normal. BG1 & 2 was player friendly too but on max difficulty and with solo it can be very punishing game. Actually it was my first RPG.
Still I think games like PS:T , Arcanum, VTM:B and BG - was mainstream in theirs time. Not VERY hardcore. Now they just old-school.

I cannot recommend to friends games like AoD or Underrail - they really more difficult for first-timer. And with wrong decisions - are very hardcore (esp. Underrail).

 

[Lurker King]

In matters of difficult - I finished PoE with triple crown solo and it was very difficult. Still it is really player-friendly game - I can recommend it to the non-player game as first game on normal. BG1 & 2 was player friendly too but on max difficulty and with solo it can be very punishing game. Actually it was my first RPG.
Still I think games like PS:T , Arcanum, VTM:B and BG - was mainstream in theirs time. Not VERY hardcore. Now they just old-school.

I cannot recommend to friends games like AoD or Underrail - they really more difficult for first-timer. And with wrong decisions - are very hardcore (esp. Underrail).

Games with different difficulty levels are designed to be played on normal. If they’re easy on normal, they are easy. Period. Self-imposing restrictions are not that interesting because they can make any game difficult.

 

[hoverdog]

This doesn't seem to be true as far as I can tell - I've seen a lot of lamenting that anything that doesn't fit into those generic categories (Tolkien, Europe, Generic Sci-Fantasy and Post-Apoc) take a hit in sales - if you try to make an RPG inspired by say Feudal China or Medieval India, you might as well be committing financial suicide.

I'm certain AoD probably took a hit for choosing "Rome inspired" as its setting because it doesn't fit nicely into a category

What the heck is this BS? Rome being as different from the Western norm as India or Rome?

Roman culture is your go-to template if you're not interested in a Medieval setting because it's still a Western one and all it's aesthetics are familiar and appealing to that audience. You've got a ready made culture and language to ape that's well known but still different enough from modern Western society to be appealing in ways not even classic Greece can match because it's well known elements are off set by other ones like a lesser known language, and one with it's own lettering that is impenetrable at a glance.

As much as it's annoying to have the same settings over and over, one has to keep in mind that they reflect someone about the target audiences culture that is rightfully interested in those aspects. It's for the same reason the China has tons of Medieval and Ancient Chinese dramas and has as convoluted plot as Western film does at times like the recent movie about Romans trying to invade China.

Now, as much as AoD tried to do something different it still played it safe in that the good old pagan Imperial Roman setting was used when the setting was clearly based on the Byzantine era and its conflicts with Persia, a setting that is largely unknown to Western gaming audiences besides history nuts who play the hell out of Paradox games.

It's stupid, but it's unfortunately true and I've heard it first-hand. If you are a, let's say, AA developer, you are not supposed to create game using a setting that is not immediately recognizable for your typical walmart-buying mcdonalds-consuming:patriot:. And this audience has no idea about history or other cultures. They respond to elves and dwarves 'coz they've seen Lord of the Rings, they have some foggy understanding about medieval times (as in plate armor and game of thrones), spaceships that go VROOOM WHEEEE [cue laser sounds] and maybe post-apocalypse with the success of Mad Max and Failout. But Rome? That HBO series was like ten years ago. You *might* have a shot if you go full blood-and-tits Spartakus mode, but Age of Decadence's hodge-podge of Ancient Rome, post-apo and vague science-mythos is, to them, completely alien. No less alien that Inuit legends.

The Witcher is probably as ambitious with its soft subversion of fantasy tropes and inclusion of Slavic bestiary as games of its size can be.

 

[Vault Dweller]

"The primary idea was to create a high-fantasy world (a prerequisite from day one - it's by far the most popular CRPG setting, despite the raucous cries of slightly jaded developers, reviewers, and some long-time gamers... sorry, guys) that began with a concept simple enough for everyone to get their head around. Then it was a matter of plent-o' twists, "tweaks for coolness," unique takes and variants on some old familiar standards, and BOOM: the World of Torn. In nearly all aspects of the world we've strived to create something familiar, yet different. I wanted there to be intriguing details and story for those interested in such, answers to those many questions so often ignored in other settings (e.g. "where the heck do all these orcs come from, and why are they all so angry?!"), background and reasons that made sense and were entertaining to discover and learn about... but most of all, I wanted Torn to be enthralling without having to be totally alien ("In Torn, dwarves live underwater and have tentacles and four eyes and shoot poison spines from their purple gill-sacks!"). I feel that a sense of familiarity and association is a powerful thing, and may be used to heighten a player's emotional experience in the game. If something can be tied into existing imagery (even if only subtly so) and be enhanced by or play off of pre-existing feelings and conceptions within the player, why throw away that extra bit of power at your disposal? In any case, we've tried to make these sundry little details and oddities pervade nearly every aspect of the game and setting (e.g. slightly altered monster stereotypes or player character racial characteristics)."

 

[DeN DarK]

Games with different difficulty levels are designed to be played on normal. If they’re easy on normal, they are easy. Period. Self-imposing restrictions are not that interesting because they can make any game difficult.

Partly agree.
Partly - because easy-normal-hard path was clearly bad design decision. People like to think they at least normal. It is hard to them to agree to be less then normal - easy. And it is hard for them to be punished by mere game on normal. Therefore - normal must be lowest level possiable (normal=easy). And story mode must be for those who cannot (or just not interested) fight even on normal. It may affect sales and it isn't bad thing. PoE on normal didn't expect you have brains at all. On Hard it is more like BG on normal. And with Triple Crown or TP-Solo it can be very challengable (but I don't think I very much liked it because I more storyfag - not combatfag).
If we forget about handicaps - and think only about games on normal still some factors can play role - as good tutorial and understandable char-system and game mechanics. Plus some game impose handicaps on your just cause they want to be more hardcore - like SitS absense of journal, Underrail absense of map, and some less popular decisions in Darkest Dungeons.

Plus - times changes. Was Arcanum or BG1 really hardcore back then? I think no. Are they more hardcore now? I think yes. But is SitS TODAY more hardcore then BG back then? Yes - it is more hardcore and proud by it (BG -journal +pixelization). Is AoD? Definitly. Is modern Underrail more hardcore then fallout back then? I think yes.
Most games on normal "dumbed down" in comparison with old-games if we speak about normal difficulty. But at least some indie RPG today more difficult then they predecessors was, and MUCH more difficult for first timers. Plus they have worse graphics then much older RPGs. => less sales for very good but very hard games.

 

[Beastro]

In nearly all aspects of the world we've strived to create something familiar, yet different. I wanted there to be intriguing details and story for those interested in such"

And it's a good mentality. As much as many here don't like it, reinventing the traditional is about the only way to bring something fresh into the world because something completely different had no foundation upon which to work with and get people sucked in.

Like most things in life, people need to realize that creativity is an evolutionary process, not a revolutionary one.

answers to those many questions so often ignored in other settings (e.g. "where the heck do all these orcs come from, and why are they all so angry?!"), background and reasons that made sense and were entertaining to discover and learn about... but most of all, I wanted Torn to be enthralling without having to be totally alien ("In Torn, dwarves live underwater and have tentacles and four eyes and shoot poison spines from their purple gill-sacks!"). I feel that a sense of familiarity and association is a powerful thing, and may be used to heighten a player's emotional experience in the game

It's interesting to note that it's what Tolkien did. One of his bugbears was the popular perception of the Elf in his time that was more like Santa's variety today when he knew their more mature, powerful Northern European roots and waned to bring them back to people's attention while having his own spin on them.

 

[Neanderthal]

You know speaking about Arcanum and inverting tropes, at beginning when Virgil started wi Chosen One shit and I read that stone at Crash Site, well I were rollin me eyes pretty fucking hard. How that turned out however, all the twists and surprises, all the interconnections, hints and legacies of the past that were revealed and I didn't initially pick up on, that were fucking brilliant, and I mean brilliant for any medium. TV, books or whatever I can usually see where script is comin from and predict all twists and turns, Arcanum threw me and no fucking mistake.

 

[Azarkon]

Reinventing the familiar is different from repeating it, and in any case I don't see how that applies to any of the games mentioned, except for Arcanum, and Arcanum's biggest issues by all the feedback I've read over the years is: bugs and terrible combat, the latter being not acceptable in this genre, traditionally speaking, due to the heavy emphasis on tactical combat.

 

[Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad]

First off, showing this at all is poor marketing.

More like honest marketing.

Glance around the market a little. The Steam previews of turn-based games are almost all smoke screens for a reason.

Which is a bad thing, right?

I could talk about this shit forever, and it's just my opinion, but basically I think your typical Steam buyer is making on-the-fly purchases largely based on initial impressions of images and ratings. The average buyer seems to be very impulsive, mind you, and owns a lot of games he wouldn't ordinarily buy if it weren't for constant sales. These games just don't seem to want to take advantage of that.

But the goal is to sell your game to people who want to play it, not fool others into making an impulse purchase and buying a game they would never play, no?

Not everyone knows they are a fan of something until they really try it. Sometimes you have to trick people into getting a first taste and some will stick around.
Do you reject the concept of Marketing entirely?

-Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad

 

[Vault Dweller]

No marketing can help you make a niche product mainstream. Our demo, for example, has been downloaded from Steam 33,247 times. 12.2% bought the game, the rest moved on because the game isn't for them. You can't trick people into liking a product that isn't for them.

Again (and again and again), there is a reason why hardcore RPGs never did as well as action games (and never will). Smaller markets -> smaller revenues.

 

[Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad]

There's no illusion question that you wouldn't have sold more than a few hundred thousand copies at best. Marketing still sells no matter.

''You can't trick people into liking a product that isn't for them.''

This goes against common sense. You can observe people and yourself included most likely regularly buy product on an impulse. Sometimes it's a good idea, sometimes not so much. You would have sold more with a few retouched screenshots, empty catchphrases...
Do you believe that you reaped every possible fans of your genre? Sometimes it takes a little push for someone to realize he prefers this kind of game over monotonous railroads.

-Abū al-Qāsim Muḥammad

 

[Telengard]

Marketing can trick people into buying something, what it can't do is trick someone into liking something. That is the realm of persuasion and psychological manipulation, which is something governments tend to reserve for their exclusive use.

One can watch the big advertising groups, where they spend 1 million for an ad spot for the Superbowl (yes, it costs 1 million per commercial), and they do get longer reach with that. But they also work hard to make the blandest, most inoffensive, most mainstream game first, so that anyone who tries the game will never run into anything that will bother them. Ever. That way, they don't feel that they were tricked when they buy it. Hardcore games don't have that advantage.

And finally, one never reaches everyone with marketing. But there's a cost factor for achieving that reach. Yes, maybe there's someone living in a cave in the Amazon who will absolutely love your game. But if it costs you a thousand to reach him, then you just lost 950.