Age of Decadence Reviews

[Old One]

If I could find an impenetrable game I would try it just for the novelty - and to read all the negative reviews.

 

[Tigranes]

You imply that the ennobling of the frustration/struggle is therefore fake and founded on bias, but there's no logical basis to suggest this. A grognard can be bitter about how kids these days get a billion songs on to their iSkedadoodles when he had to record his favourite songs off late night radio on cassette - but that doesn't mean there was no meaning behind that difficulty and that the point is not valid. This is similar to when people trot out nostalgia not as an argument but as an emblem, as if just pointing out something you liked happened a long time ago automatically makes your argument based on poor memory and bias.

The point of my post is that I fundamentally disagree 'having fun' is about eliminating anything momentarily frustrating to try and reach some perfect distillation of indulgent experiences, and the long tradition of 'play' across many civilisations is testimony to that. And I fundamentally don't believe that making things 'easier' for the player or getting rid of 'furstration' in a game experience is a good thing in itself. If anything, neither frustration or ease-of-use are inherently positive, because what matters is crafting a sense of meaningful challenge, consequence and achievement over the course of the game rather than jerking them off every 5 seconds (or killing their characters and deleting their savegames every 5 seconds, for that matter).

Again, I know you aren't exactly advocating Dragon Age 2 here, I'm just using you to rant and rave in the grand Codex tradition.

Yes, I think it is actually entirely possible that every generation has gotten worse and weaker and lazier and more lascivious and worse at RPGs than the prior generation. It is possible (but I think less probable) that the Second Coming will actually happen in our generation, even though every other generation before us expected it to come in theirs. But the more likely fact is that things plod on much as they always have, conveniences replace inconveniences and new inconveniences arise to fill the gaps, and the world gets more crowded and richer. Some day whippersnappers will take about how they had to put up with loading delays and make careful decisions about whether to enter a new zone or not.

Come on MRY, this is a paragraph devoid of substance. All you're doing is misrepresenting my argument as some "things were great in the 60s when I specifically happened to be a youngster and now everything is shit" harping, and then ending with some vague and meaningless platitude about how life goes on.

You specifically said if a game feels unfair to the player then the game is doing something wrong and should fix it. I disputed this not on the basis that people have become more stupid or whatever, but on the basis that each player is part of a generational set of expectations, and games over time play a key role in managing those expectations - so that if games take a blanket 'customer is right' approach, then you have a negative spiral where the game loses a lot of what makes it meaningful play experience. I also specifically said that making players feel frustration isn't good in itself, but that it is a secondary effect of trying to make games that have a creative vision and also to produce original gameplay relative to the norm, and so demonising it and saying games should never make players feel it's unfair or too hard or annoying etc. is missing the point. I don't see how this has anything to do with 'oh people always get nostalgic about the old days but times change and c'est la vie".

 

[Elhoim]

New Dungeon Rats negative review:

"Combat interface was not intuitive. Camera motion eratic. Tutorial had gaps. Did not enjoy my brief time with this game."

Player's fault? Game fault? Discuss!

 

[MRY]

I guess my point is that almost every form of suffering is ennobled by people who survive it, particularly senseless suffering because if you don't ennoble it you feel like a jackass for having let it happen to you. Probably every form of suffering does impart some grit and toughness, and certainly some forms of suffering are so valuable that they should be maintained. But I tend to view the whole "this was good because it is hard" mentality askance because the argument is made in literally every context, and thus doesn't (in my opinion) mean much. People unironically (and ironically, of course) speak of a benefit to having blown on NES cartridges, for example, or having struggled with IRQ and DMA settings to get audio to work in a game. Heck, even I've unironically so spoken! But I skeptical, even of myself, especially of myself, in that regard.

You're right that if all games are scared to challenge players, games will become less challenging and players will get more hostile to challenge. But I see very little evidence that games have stopped challenging players, as I explained above. What I'm seeing instead is that, within a certain category of games (primarily narrative games), players are hostile to a particular kind of artificial challenge (the challenge of figuring out for yourself opaque systems that imposing lasting punishment if you fail at them).

People who say that players today don't like or can't handle challenging games with long learning curves need to have some explanation for the fact that the top games on Steam are MOBAs, survival sims, hero shooters, and Counterstrike, some explanation for indie hits like Spelunky, Super Meatboy, The Binding of Isaac, etc. To me, the answer is there is widespread acceptance of, and demand for, intensely challenging games, but there is a hostility to something else, which isn't "challenge." I think it is something like (1) players are only willing to tolerate "academic" approaches to games (i.e., where you have to spend hours studying how to play outside the context of playing the game) in PvP competitive contexts, and even then most people aren't that crazy about it; (2) no one likes having to replay static, low-challenge or narrative-rich content as a consequence of failure; (3) people don't like unpredictable roadblocks except in games that are tongue-in-cheekily marketed as such, and even then there has to be a relative low replaying requirement and #1 would apply.

But I don't think any of these dislikes are harming games. What is harming games is when developers respond to players' hostility with, "I dunno, they're dumb, I'll just dumb down the content to appease them" or "I dunno, they're dumb, I don't really need them to like my game." It seems like the former reaction is basically what happened to adventure games, narrative shooters (although those have always kind of been a joke), and RPGs. But -- and I admit, I haven't played many games in a long time -- my sense is that other genres, like fighting games, RTS games, perhaps strategy games (with the caveat that Civilization has maybe been dumbed down, though I don't know), platformers, competitive shooters, etc. have responded by keeping a really long learning curve but also making the learning process and the failure process much less frustrating. With narrative games, it seems like developers basically said, "If players have issue with our gameplay but like our stories, the solution is just to make the gameplay trivial," which was a dumb decision, not one I advocate, and not one that the players wanted, even if players have by and large tolerated or even approved of it.

I don't think novel and creative and meaningful games are necessarily frustrating. I don't think it is that hard to introduce players to systems gradually. Except, perhaps, in RPGs, where character creation is almost necessarily (1) the first interaction and (2) the most systemically complicated.

 

[bat_boro]

So has anyone asked VD to dump the things he read during the epic dev cycle of AoD yet? Also would you say pursuing an education in game design is useful or helpful in any way since mainstream gaming has gone down the drain in the last years and it's exactly because of design for the lowest common denominator?

 

[Vault Dweller]

So has anyone asked VD to dump the things he read during the epic dev cycle of AoD yet?

I read a lot so considering that the game was in development for 10 years that would be quite a list.

Also would you say pursuing an education in game design is useful or helpful in any way since mainstream gaming has gone down the drain in the last years and it's exactly because of design for the lowest common denominator?

Probably not because game design is a concept as fluid as the millennials' genders. Even if it's the course is RPG-oriented, there's a huge difference between Fallout's design and Fallout 4 design not to mention between Fallout and Dragon Age: Inquisition. I assume that no course will ignore the latest and greatest RPGs that sold bajillion copies and focus on RPGs that sold fuck all and bankrupted the studios. So the only reason to pursue such "education" is to get a job in AAA studio, provided they think it's a bonus.

People who say that players today don't like or can't handle challenging games with long learning curves need to have some explanation for the fact that the top games on Steam are MOBAs, survival sims, hero shooters, and Counterstrike...

Hardly a mystery. There is a huge difference between twitch-based challenge and ruleset-based challenge. Games that tested players' reflexes and reaction were always popular. Games that tested players' understanding of odds-based mechanics were always a niche genre. There's a reason why RPGs nearly went extinct and the only way to bring them back and make then "popular" was by adding stats to shooters and action games.

Would chess be more popular if it had better tutorials? No, it fucking wouldn't. Either the concept grabs you and you want to play and learn more or it doesn't. There's nothing in between.

 

[MRY]

MOBAs are not (solely) twitch-based challenge. The rules are quite elaborate and people spend absurd time min-maxing and doing spreadsheets and so on.

And yes, of course chess relies on tutorials. How many people learn chess from picking up a book and playing against an expert vs. from a teacher, a father, a brother, a friend, etc. who starts off with the basics, doesn't use advanced gambits and tricks on you, etc.? Almost everyone who plays chess was introduced to it by a gentle, personalized tutorial.

 

[Fenix]

MOBAs are not (solely) twitch-based challenge. The rules are quite elaborate and people spend absurd time min-maxing and doing spreadsheets and so on.

It is nothing without microcontrol skill, back then I played dota no matter what you know - team with micro will tear you apart, because guess what - they have same information, and now when internet is everywhere there are tons of guids for a game popular like moba. So it is actually a question how many of them do brainwork.

 

[Vault Dweller]

MOBAs are not (solely) twitch-based challenge. The rules are quite elaborate and people spend absurd time min-maxing and doing spreadsheets and so on.

And yes, of course chess relies on tutorials. How many people learn chess from picking up a book and playing against an expert vs. from a teacher, a father, a brother, a friend, etc. who starts off with the basics, doesn't use advanced gambits and tricks on you, etc.? Almost everyone who plays chess was introduced to it by a gentle, personalized tutorial.

Sure and that's how RPGs start. The first fights are easy and don't use any "advanced gambits". Anyway, my point is that your mind needs to work a certain way to dig chess when it's introduced to you by "a gentle, personalized tutorial". If it doesn't, no tutorial will help you. So either you look at the spreadsheet porn and get fascinated by the possibilities or you don't.

 

[PlanHex]

Probably less people would be frustrated if the tutorial was as involved and hand-holding as the new XCOMs, where you're told exactly where to go/shoot/grenade etc and it's impossible to even do dumb shit to fail.
Could probably do it pretty easily as a series of arena fights: This guy dodges, hit his legs! This guy has a shield and heavy armor but no helmet, stab him in the face! You're in the corner with an archer, but a melee guy is closing in. Use fire to block off the melee guy and keep the archer pinned, then kill archer, switch to melee guy when archer is dead etc etc)

I'd say this would take a lot of the fun out of the game though. Ruins the discovery of advanced techniques when you're just told what to do up front.
And doesn't help people building themselves into a corner by putting skills in random places anyway.

 

[Fenix]

Probably less people would be frustrated if the tutorial was as involved and hand-holding as the new XCOMs, where you're told exactly where to go/shoot/grenade etc and it's impossible to even do dumb shit to fail.
Could probably do it pretty easily as a series of arena fights: This guy dodges, hit his legs! This guy has a shield and heavy armor but no helmet, stab him in the face! You're in the corner with an archer, but a melee guy is closing in. Use fire to block off the melee guy and keep the archer pinned, then kill archer, switch to melee guy when archer is dead etc etc)

I'd say this would take a lot of the fun out of the game though. Ruins the discovery of advanced techniques when you're just told what to do up front.
And doesn't help people building themselves into a corner by putting skills in random places anyway.

I can't imagine something more disgusting that what you proposed.
This kind of tutorial usually indicate shallow gameplay because it indicate expectation about overall low skills of players.
So I most likely will skip such game.
More than that I feel nausea from art-style for toddlers, and no matter how theoretically good game is, Iskip them too, andI think it is normal behavior like grow peopel don't play with baby toys.

 

[MRY]

MOBAs are not (solely) twitch-based challenge. The rules are quite elaborate and people spend absurd time min-maxing and doing spreadsheets and so on.

And yes, of course chess relies on tutorials. How many people learn chess from picking up a book and playing against an expert vs. from a teacher, a father, a brother, a friend, etc. who starts off with the basics, doesn't use advanced gambits and tricks on you, etc.? Almost everyone who plays chess was introduced to it by a gentle, personalized tutorial.

Sure and that's how RPGs start. The first fights are easy and don't use any "advanced gambits". Anyway, my point is that your mind needs to work a certain way to dig chess when it's introduced to you by "a gentle, personalized tutorial". If it doesn't, no tutorial will help you. So either you look at the spreadsheet porn and get fascinated by the possibilities or you don't.

I'm confused. Do you think the same number of people would play chess if there wasn't a "tutorial" of someone teaching it to them? Because at the outset it seemed like you overlooked the way people learned chess, suggesting that chess lacked a tutorial, whereas now you seem to agree that everyone learns it through a tutorial but are arguing that the tutorial makes no difference to whether people enjoy chess or not?

Imagine the only way to play chess was to read a chess manual and then play against other players who wouldn't give you advice or feedback. No effect on player base? I'd humbly suggest you're crazy if that's what you think.

If you think RPGs work because they teach the system the same way a friend, classmate, brother, dad, teacher teaches a chess neophyte, then you approve of tutorials. I disagree with you factually about what RPGs do, but I agree that RPG systems ideally would be taught with the same care, patience, and jocularity that chess is taught. (And, incidentally, chess is a horrible example since it's got extraordinarily easy systems to learn and no hidden surprises like "It turns out a pawn that started in front of a bishop can't actually turn into a queen when it reaches the end of the board, heehee!" [EDIT: Except for en passant taking and maybe castling, and both of these have a way of exasperating new players for exactly that reason.] People largely dislike chess not because they can't figure out the rules but because they find the lack of stimuli boring -- long waits between turns, no visceral interaction, etc. That's one reason why Battle Chess, which had inferior AI but flashy graphics, did so well.)

Also, just as a thought experiment, this may be hard to do, but imagine you're someone who is experienced at playing AOD, and you recommend it to a friend, and then -- because we're in a weird timewarp or something -- rather than him just being someone you talk to over the Internet, he's like a high school buddy, and you actually go over to his house to hang out and he installs AOD and loads it up and you're sitting right next to him, and he reaches the character creation screen and looks over at you. "Any advice?"

I assume you'd respond with something like, "Well, you can play the game in all sorts of ways. What are you interested in doing?" And you might give him some high level explanation for viable and crappy character builds, and so on.

Is it your view that a player introduced to AOD that way, as opposed to a player introduce to AOD simply by diving in alone, is no more likely to enjoy the game? If so, who am I to dissuade you, but I think you're pretty obviously wrong, as most of us can remember the great experience of having someone introduce us to a game like that, and it almost never ended with not liking the game.

The question is how to make a tutorial that serves that purposes but doesn't interfere with more experienced players' enjoyment of the game.

Re: MOBAs, it's not worth the energy to argue, but to be honest it seems like you guys haven't actually played MOBAs, RTSs, or other competitive non-turnbased games and so aren't really aware of how much goes into the tactics, strategy, system-knowledge, etc. Not a big deal, not worth belaboring.

 

[Lurker King]

Probably less people would be frustrated if the tutorial was as involved and hand-holding as the new XCOMs, where you're told exactly where to go/shoot/grenade etc and it's impossible to even do dumb shit to fail.
Could probably do it pretty easily as a series of arena fights: This guy dodges, hit his legs! This guy has a shield and heavy armor but no helmet, stab him in the face! You're in the corner with an archer, but a melee guy is closing in. Use fire to block off the melee guy and keep the archer pinned, then kill archer, switch to melee guy when archer is dead etc etc)

I'd say this would take a lot of the fun out of the game though. Ruins the discovery of advanced techniques when you're just told what to do up front.
And doesn't help people building themselves into a corner by putting skills in random places anyway.

It wouldn't work even in theory. In a tutorial your enemy should be inoffensive like a dummy, otherwise he could screw the Popamole player.

 

[PlanHex]

Worked for nu-XCOM just fine. Those sold millions and wasn't twitch-based challenge. Of course, they also dumbed it down compared to Xenonauts, had 2Ks marketing machine, Firaxis pedigree and so on.

Also, I already said it would be impossible to do dumb shit and fail. In case you haven't tried nu-XCOM, the tutorials won't let you perform any action on your turn that isn't the officially mandated Correct Move™, and all actions are pre-set to hit or miss, so no RNG. They were only really useful in terms of learning the interface and felt like the game was talking down to you the whole time. But they were skippable, so there's that I guess.

I could imagine many of the complaints about AoD come from people who go directly from the vignette to the Militiades encounter, IG attack on Daratan or try to wipe the bandit camp / mine, all with shit gear and/or low combat skills. Hard to do anything about that with a tutorial.

 

[Ninjerk]

Imagine the only way to play chess was to read a chess manual and then play against other players who wouldn't give you advice or feedback. No effect on player base? I'd humbly suggest you're crazy if that's what you think.

The game is feedback.

 

[Lurker King]

I read dozens of contrived red herrings in complaints about AoD ("the excessive use of skills", "this game is unpolished", etc.), but "the lack of tutorial" card takes the prize. Well, the game has a... tutorial in it, it is friendly as it gets. Besides, every single item has a description in it, you can press F1 to understand basic concepts, etc. Let's be honest. What MYR really want, but is a little embarassed to admit, is that the game needs a popamole mode.

 

[Lithium Flower]

MRY

I think you might be giving too much credit to traditional tutorials like manuals, tutoring, etc and under-appreciating learning through experimentation. As VD said, if the game provides an incremental amount of challenges to introduce you to its mechanics (notice how this is not the same as throwing the player into the deep end head-first, which is something that no one except maybe Fenix is arguing for), that might be a much more effective teaching method than the most comprehensive of tutorials. I think AoD is rather good at that, with things like the inn fight taunting you for throwing your life away for no reason if you happen to get killed there ("killed by a fucking oaf for hire..."), or the Militades encounter teaching you that the game is filled with lying bastards. New players are expected to get killed in both these encounters so that they may learn something from that experience. As a result, by the time player reaches Madoraan they are going to be much more streetwise and have a better grasp on the odds they can handle. Now that is by no means a gentle, personalized approach, but I think it is effective into getting some core concepts (optional fights are difficult, Militades is a fucking prick) into the gamer's head with minimal inconvenience of having to press the quick load key.

 

[MRY]

So, this began as a discussion about whether, when a player cannot grasp a game, the game developer has any responsibility, or whether the fault lies with the player. My points are that (1) contrary to popular Codexian opinion, if you look outside the context of narrative-intense single-player-exclusive games, modern players have no objection to challenge or complex systems; (2) that it is pretty obvious that players' objections are to something other than challenge and complexity, and that is probably to opacity, dead-ends and other unpredictable traps, academic learning in non-competitive games, and replaying of static or narrative content; and (3) that developers could avoid scaring off players with systemic complexity in narrative games if they did a better job of explaining the systems to avoid opacity and avoid unpredictable traps.

It seems like, despite a lot of bellyaching about how tutorials are for idiots, everyone now agrees that they're wonderful necessities, it's just that you guys think that every RPG already has a perfect tutorial and I don't. As long as we all agree in spirit, that's fine, we now concur that developers have an obligation to teach the game systems to the players, and it strikes me that the only measure of whether a tutorial is good is whether it works, so if large numbers of players are quitting your game because they don't understand the system, that means the tutorial is bad even if the systems are brilliant. Since we all now agree a tutorial is necessary, then we can all agree that such developers are at fault and we can hold hands and be happy!

Notwithstanding the fact that this is in an AOD thread, I never particularly cared about the application of the general principle to AOD, which I loved and have tried to encourage others to play. I was more concerned with correcting the erroneous claims people made above, including: (1) players don't expect tutorials in other kinds of games like RTSs; (2) players don't like challenging games; (3) MOBAs are all about twitch reflexes, etc. Whether AOD does or doesn't have a good tutorial is totally beside the point as far as I'm concerned -- equally so as to whether, say, Worlds of Xeen has a good tutorial, because I have no ability to change the past. I am only concerned with finding a way to get more RPG players interested in playing systematically complicated RPGs.

That said, I don't think AOD ever guided the player through a huge variety of meta-gameplay concepts (like skill-point hoarding), either in the tutorial or through the way the game progressed. The best kinds of tutorials aren't done with long, tedious exposition at the outset, but by quickly teaching the player enough to play and then adding in new complexity as you go. (RPGs have the problem that so much turns on the initial character creation that you have to do a fair amount of education right at the start.) In that sense, I agree with Lithium Flower that AOD does a pretty decent job with some aspects in this regard, but it's somewhat unfortunate that it teaches primarily through fail-states and not through some other means.

I think AOD probably would be improved if it did more to offer premade builds and progression advice for amateur players, while leaving experienced players the leeway to do atypical builds that open up whole new vistas.

 

[Ninjerk]

So, this began as a discussion about whether, when a player cannot grasp a game, the game developer has any responsibility, or whether the fault lies with the player. My points are that (1) contrary to popular Codexian opinion, if you look outside the context of narrative-intense single-player-exclusive games, modern players have no objection to challenge or complex systems; (2) that it is pretty obvious that players' objections are to something other than challenge and complexity, and that is probably to opacity, dead-ends and other unpredictable traps, academic learning in non-competitive games, and replaying of static or narrative content; and (3) that developers could avoid scaring off players with systemic complexity in narrative games if they did a better job of explaining the systems to avoid opacity and avoid unpredictable traps.

It seems like, despite a lot of bellyaching about how tutorials are for idiots, everyone now agrees that they're wonderful necessities, it's just that you guys think that every RPG already has a perfect tutorial and I don't. As long as we all agree in spirit, that's fine, we now concur that developers have an obligation to teach the game systems to the players, and it strikes me that the only measure of whether a tutorial is good is whether it works, so if large numbers of players are quitting your game because they don't understand the system, that means the tutorial is bad even if the systems are brilliant. Since we all now agree a tutorial is necessary, then we can all agree that such developers are at fault and we can hold hands and be happy!

Notwithstanding the fact that this is in an AOD thread, I never particularly cared about the application of the general principle to AOD, which I loved and have tried to encourage others to play. I was more concerned with correcting the erroneous claims people made above, including: (1) players don't expect tutorials in other kinds of games like RTSs; (2) players don't like challenging games; (3) MOBAs are all about twitch reflexes, etc. Whether AOD does or doesn't have a good tutorial is totally beside the point as far as I'm concerned -- equally so as to whether, say, Worlds of Xeen has a good tutorial, because I have no ability to change the past. I am only concerned with finding a way to get more RPG players interested in playing systematically complicated RPGs.

That said, I don't think AOD ever guided the player through a huge variety of meta-gameplay concepts (like skill-point hoarding), either in the tutorial or through the way the game progressed. The best kinds of tutorials aren't done with long, tedious exposition at the outset, but by quickly teaching the player enough to play and then adding in new complexity as you go. (RPGs have the problem that so much turns on the initial character creation that you have to do a fair amount of education right at the start.) In that sense, I agree with Lithium Flower that AOD does a pretty decent job with some aspects in this regard, but it's somewhat unfortunate that it teaches primarily through fail-states and not through some other means.

I think AOD probably would be improved if it did more to offer premade builds and progression advice for amateur players, while leaving experienced players the leeway to do atypical builds that open up whole new vistas.

You know I keep going back a couple pages or so to engage in the debate and I keep seeing you erecting strawmen (e.g. decline of the men of the North meme against Tigranes) with people who appear to have every intention of sincerely discussing the issue with you. Are you emotionally invested in this to the point that you cannot argue in good faith? It's really bizarre to see this coming from you of all people.

 

[Lithium Flower]

I wrote the following, refrained from posting it, but since Ninjerk has just brought it up - fuck it:

Again MRY, I find it hard to disagree with most of the things you've said in the last post, but:

It seems like, despite a lot of bellyaching about how tutorials are for idiots, everyone now agrees that they're wonderful necessities, it's just that you guys think that every RPG already has a perfect tutorial and I don't.

(...)

I was more concerned with correcting the erroneous claims people made above, including: (1) players don't expect tutorials in other kinds of games like RTSs; (2) players don't like challenging games; (3) MOBAs are all about twitch reflexes, etc.

Alright, I am going to say it. Tigranes was the person that made the most amount of sense in the last few pages. Why? Take a look at some of his posts:

>addresses MRY's arguments

(And going beyond MRY a bit to rail at strawmen now

>addresses hypothetical extreme positions

Again, I know you aren't exactly advocating Dragon Age 2 here, I'm just using you to rant and rave in the grand Codex tradition.

Except certain people involved in this discussion did not make the distinction between addressing someone's point and railing against a hypothetical extreme position, and so the conversation turned into an extended exercise in strawmanning. The points you have "concerned" yourself with correcting were not actually made by anyone here. There were some nuanced (and some not so nuanced, admittedly) arguments, but they were not the extreme positions you have just outlined.

And I am not pointing fingers exclusively at MRY here either. Plenty of other people involved in this discussion did the exact same thing and took it way further than he ever did. MRY is not a "demagogue" who uses apologia in order to spread the forces of decline because of his teaching background (or something) and people who are suggesting that and/or getting downright outraged over his posts may or may not have a case of terminal autism.

 

[MRY]

I guess I just figured that people could tell the difference between tongue-in-cheek teasing and strawmen, but apparently not. Incidentally, I still have no idea whether you all believe (1) tutorials are bad and it's great that AOD doesn't have one or (2) tutorials are great and AOD has a fantastic one. Perhaps we're at the point where we need an intervention by Lois Lane and Hawkeye to help us work through our xenolinguistics problems.

I do care about the issue a lot because I firmly believe that advocates for systemically complicated narrative games (including adventure games and RPGs) are partly culpable for the decline of those genres because they constantly confuse opacity, crappy interfaces, deathtraps, etc. for "challenge," leading developers astray because developers have realized you can't sell enough narrative games to cover costs if they are opaque, hard to play, and unfairly punishing. Because those developers believe the lie that players don't actually want complex games because they don't want crappy, unwelcoming experiences, they wind up making dumb games and abetting the feedback loop that Tigranes or Lithium Flower noted earlier. Since I believe it is ignorance and perhaps even self-deception that causes fans of "hardcore" narrative games to push the line of argument that has led developers astray, I have tried my best with a mix of facts and jokes to get you guys to reassess your views. I failed, you won't, so it goes. None of us matters much in the grand scheme of things, or even in the little scheme of RPG design. As for AOD, I'm a big fan and supporter of the game, and I wouldn't see its systems simplified, and I'm not particularly interested in trying or encouraging AOD to change his approach as a butterfly's wings "just to give it a little boost" is never a good idea.

Conversely, none of you in a million years with all your many gifts of persuasion will ever be able to convince me of any of the following claims:
(1) MOBAs, fighting games, and RTSs have shallow systems are rely primarily on twitch reflexes. These games all have incredibly sophisticated systems and very long learning curves and twitch reflexes may be necessary for high-end play but are by no means sufficient.
(2) Gamers today are so much more hostile to challenging or systemically complex than games were gamers 15 years ago that it has shrunk the market for challenging or systemically complex games. The market for games has grown enormously and even there has been some shrinkage in the challenging-game demographic as a percentage, the total number is up. There is no plausible alternative argument for the huge success of very challenging and very complex games (like Spelunky or Crusader Kings)
(3) It is better to require players to read a manual and learn by guesswork in a narratively complex, non-emergent, non-procedural game than it is to structure the game to teach players the concepts in a clear and friendly fashion.
(4) It is more important for a player who has paid money to play a game to work hard to enjoy it than it is for a developer who has been paid for the game to work hard to make it enjoyable.

Maybe we're in substantial agreement though. Who knows? It's all hexapod to me.

 

[Lithium Flower]

I guess I just figured that people could tell the difference between tongue-in-cheek teasing and strawmen, but apparently not.

Then I apologize. Still, you must see how repeatedly being ironic in a serious (alright, that's a stretch) discussion did not help communication, especially since some of the people in this conversation were genuinely tilting at windmills.

So. AoD reviews. Anyone got interesting/dumb AoD reviews to discuss?

 

[makiavelli747]

There is a reason why Crusader Kings a lot more popular than Victoria, and it's not because of "tutorial". Games like "Capitalism 2" would never appear anymore, "The Guild" would never sell as much as "The Sims", etc. Some complex games can sell well because they look fun, not because they complex and smart. Civilization sells well because it's cool to control nation throughout ages, not because it has complex systems. Morons don't like complex games because they remind them that they are stupid. If you die in Dark Souls you are bad at reflexes, if you die in AoD you are stupid. TES sells well because it makes morons feel good about them selfs and is not "tedious"(lol).

 

[Lurker King]

So MRY, "systemically complicated narrative games (including adventure games and RPGs) are partly culpable for the decline of those genres because they constantly confuse opacity, crappy interfaces, deathtraps, etc. for "challenge". Well, someone could say that idiotic players can't appreciate systemically complicated narrative games because they confuse challenge with opacity, crappy interfaces and deathtraps. These games seem opaque to them, because they are lazy; the interfaces seem crappy, because they want hand-holding; the think that some feature is a deathtrap, because they don't want to be punished.

You say you are a AoD supporter, but at the same time you suggest that games like AoD sell poor because their developers are confused. You can't have the cake and eat it. If you want to insult the game, do it openly. There is no need for this indirect passive agressive cowardice.

The fact that you think that (1) players need to read a manual in order to enjoy a "systemically complicated narrative game"; (2) players that paid money to play a game shouldn't work to learn it; (3) MOBAs, fighting games, and RTSs are in any comparable to proper cRPGs, speaks volumes about you. You are a complete imbecile.

 

[Fenix]

Are you emotionally invested in this to the point that you cannot argue in good faith?

Yes and I said how and why.

"systemically complicated narrative games (including adventure games and RPGs) are partly culpable for the decline of those genres because they constantly confuse opacity, crappy interfaces, deathtraps, etc. for "challenge"

Is it quote from MRY? If yes apologetics continues.
No, decline caused by different reasons, you confused cause and effect.
First education system and society (suppy in mass culture - tv an movie, literature) dumbed young generations down, then these generations demand dumbed down mass culture - the circle is closed. Starting point is when test system was introduced in US (and in any other country like in Russia ten years ago).
So these completely dumbed down generations demand same games because they can't handle something complex.
It is not a games that reason, because the reason always within a man.