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

[Doesn'tmeananything]

Marketing cant make niche product into mainstream success but it can help to reach the potential target audience. Even the best product won't reach the market segment if they don't know it exists.

Marketing is largely irrelevant when it comes to niche markets. When offer is low and demang is high, target audience is pro-active in prowling for products to satisfy their needs. I bet the majority of AoD players had known about the game for several years before buying it.

Everytime Vault Dweller opens his mouth, he reminds me why I hate him since he sounds like such a moron. "RPGs cant sell, oh except for half the exceptions". If there is an exception to the rule, maybe the rule was bad in the first place? This is the essence of creative thinking, THINK why some games sell and some don't and it's not because "just cuz".

Calling action games with stats 'exceptions' is more than disingenuous here. When you play something like Skyrim, you're taken on an asset tour with very little player agency, attraction to attraction. This is certainly not the case with RPGs.

AoD hasn't sold because it has fundamentally failed to relate to the player, not because of whatever exterior threats VD has conjured up in this thread.

AoD literally not visceral enough.

 

[Celerity]

Seconded. The conditions to trick causals to buy cRPGs are:

(1) Irrational hyping artificially created by jornos, which is marketing. However, indie studios don’t have millions to spend on marketing.

(2) Irrational hyping artificially created by artsy hipster groups.

(3) Good graphics, but without a complex combat system.

(4) Present the game in a way that makes it looks like something else, which is practically impossible in a good game.

Unless you have (1) or (2), nothing will make causals buy your game. Even if they buy your game by mistake, they will immediately ask for a refund.

Not just CRPGs, and this system works. It can even make complete trash like Derpest Dungeon sell well. Even the part about having millions of dollars on marketing, since it was certainly not spent on the game!

 

[Infinitron]

I think Azarkon's unspoken assumption is that games like Skyrim are dumbed down in ways that aren't necessary for their sales success - that Bethesda could have added more choices and better writing and still sold the same number of copies. Like, imagine if the Skyrim team had been replaced with the Fallout: New Vegas team (but still under the Bethesda brand name) and given the same amount of time and budget. Would it really have sold less?

 

[Lurker King]

I think Azarkon's unspoken assumption is that games like Skyrim are dumbed down in ways that aren't necessary for their sales success - that Bethesda could have added more choices and better writing and still sold the same number of copies. Like, imagine if the Skyrim team had been replaced with the Fallout: New Vegas team (but still under the Bethesda brand name) and given the same amount of time and budget. Would it really have sold less?

As I said before, systematic role-play is not the typical fluffy C&C you can find on DA:I. Systematic role-play is not presenting 3% of choice, when the remaining 97% of quests are linear. To implement systematic role-play in popamole games you would have to change their nature significantly. You can’t have the gigantic amount of filler quests if they all provide choices. Either you cut the content of a single playthrough by at least 75% or the studio would have to increase development time and costs significantly. Of course, no publisher intended to milk money from causals will ever do something like this. If they are super happy with a single playthrough composed of filler quests, they don’t need to change the formula. This is like wasting a fortune in painting your new build to praise the blinds that don’t give a shit about colors.

This entire discussion is surreal. A guy who enjoy bad cRPGs, is using bad cRPGs that sold well as an example to be followed by good cRPGs that sold less, as if these cRPGs are selling less because they are doing something wrong. This view of things turns the world upside down, because these cRPGs are selling less precisely because they are doing everything right. The guy then argues that the elements of cRPGs that do everything right, but sold less, are also present in games that sold well. Therefore, pointing to these features is not an excuse for poor sales. What he forgot to mention is that these features didn’t hurt the sales only because they were streamlined and water down to the point they don’t have any more substance. If the way you implement C&C is forcing the main character to do 90% of the quests as the good guy, the reactivity is an illusion. If the player is not punished by making wrong choices of stats and skills, then the stats and skills are meaningless. You just have an illusion of character building. In fact, popamoler cRPGs tend to sustain themselves on the illusion that you are playing a genuine cRPGs with genuine elements of gameplay and choice. Terms like “cRPGs”, “incline”, “hardcore”, “old-school” don’t mean anything anymore. These terms were so abused by irrational players they are not reliable indicators of anything.

 

[Telengard]

It would sell much more crappily. Why? Because Bethesda has worked hard to develop a certain kind of play experience that their audience really enjoys. And that audience has already many times stated their likes and dislikes for us all to read. They wouldn't like how the game world would be "saturated...with so many boring people". They wouldn't like feeling like an "errand boy", "doing things for people they don't care about". They wouldn't like how there are consequences to their actions, since they "prefer it when people just don't care". [10 seconds of googling for those quotes - there's way better out there]

And most of all, they wouldn't like how you can't just run off for a couple of hours and fuck around doing whatever you want and have the game constantly reward you with various new equipment, perks, and achievements for doing so. What Bethesda gives them is the feeling of Freedom.

People here often want to believe that it's all hype marketing, name recognition, and peer pressure that makes all these top selling games sell. But that's just a comfort lie. Bethesda gives a large group of people exactly what they want. And the hype and peer pressure starts because that initial group is already large, large enough to attain critical mass. Niche products don't attain critical mass because they are niche. It's in the name. So, as for that scenario - some nerd goes: look at this great new game from Obsidian Bethesda with lots of stats and consequences. And the mainstream rpg audience goes: fuck off back to nerdland, nerd, I got actual fun games to play.

 

[Infinitron]

It would sell much more crappily. Why? Because Bethesda has worked hard to develop a certain kind of play experience that their audience really enjoys. And that audience has already many times stated their likes and dislikes for us all to read.

My problem with statements like these is the following:

On one hand, we make fun of the Bethesda audience. We call them morons.

But on the other hand, a characteristic of morons is that they don't have a defined opinion on things. They're too dumb for that. Knowing what you want and rejecting all other things demands a certain modicum of intelligence and self-awareness. You see this in political surveys, where "moderates" routinely test as having lower knowledge and IQ than both conservatives and libruls.

It should be easy to "trick" these people into liking a game like New Vegas. And to wit, the game doesn't appear to have sold less than its Fallout 3 predecessor.

 

[Ellef]

AoD hasn't sold because it has fundamentally failed to relate to the player.

Sounds like empty marketing speak for when some AAA fails to sell a gajillion copies. You're an idiot.

 

[Telengard]

It would sell much more crappily. Why? Because Bethesda has worked hard to develop a certain kind of play experience that their audience really enjoys. And that audience has already many times stated their likes and dislikes for us all to read.

My problem with statements like these is the following:

On one hand, we make fun of the Bethesda audience. We call them morons.

But on the other hand, a characteristic of morons is that they don't have a defined opinion on things. They're too dumb for that. Knowing what you want and rejecting all other things demands a certain modicum of intelligence and self-awareness. You see this in political surveys, where "moderates" routinely test as having lower knowledge and IQ than both conservatives and libruls.

It should be easy to "trick" these people into liking a game like New Vegas. And to wit, the game doesn't appear to have sold less than its Fallout 3 predecessor.

You are making the assumption that they're morons who can't state what they want. Another comfort lie often told here. These groups may not be able to articulate what they want very well, but they do have deep-seated feelings about it. What's more, even if they were all dumb morons, dumb morons know consequences very well. They may not be able to argue about it, but they will have suffered enough bad grades to know the feeling of it very well indeed.

People are easily tricked into doing simple, immediate things that they have little resistance for - like buying something relatively inexpensive. You can even trick someone into saying "yes" or "no" on a questionnaire through leading questions. That's still a quick thing, though. Swaying someone's opinion, that's something else entirely. Someone who hates the feeling that happens when there are consequences, trying to change their mind would require massive reconditioning, not tricks.

 

[likaq]

As I said before, systematic role-play is not the typical fluffy C&C you can find on DA:I. Systematic role-play is not presenting 3% of choice, when the remaining 97% of quests are linear. To implement systematic role-play in popamole games you would have to change their nature significantly. You can’t have the gigantic amount of filler quests if they all provide choices. Either you cut the content of a single playthrough by at least 75% or the studio would have to increase development time and costs significantly. Of course, no publisher intended to milk money from causals will ever do something like this. If they are super happy with a single playthrough composed of filler quests, they don’t need to change the formula. This is like wasting a fortune in painting your new build to praise the blinds that don’t give a shit about colors.

This entire discussion is surreal. A guy who enjoy bad cRPGs, used bad cRPGs that sold well as an example to be followed by good cRPGs that sold less, as if these cRPGs are selling less because they are doing something wrong. This view of things turns the world upside down, because these cRPGs are selling less precisely because they are doing everything right. The guy then argues that the elements of cRPGs that do everything right, but sold less, are also present in the games that sold well. Therefore, pointing to these features is not an excuse for poor sales. What he forgot to mention is that these features didn’t hurt the sales only because they were streamlined and water down to the point they don’t have any more substance. If the way you implement C&C is forcing the main character to do 90% of the quests as the good guy, the reactivity is an illusion. If the player is not punished by making wrong choices of stats and skills, then the stats and skills are meaningless. You just have an illusion of character building. In fact, popamoler cRPGs tend to sustain themselves on the illusion that you are playing a genuine cRPGs with genuine elements of gameplay and choice. Terms like “cRPGs”, “incline”, “hardcore”, “old-school” don’t mean anything anymore. These terms were so abused by irrational players they are not reliable indicators of anything.

This.

Codexers have memory of goldfish, i swear.
This is how beth audience looks like:

The recent release of Fallout New Vegas has left the gaming community abuzz. Would we get a worthwhile title, or was this actually released too soon? I’ve been playing it for the last couple weeks now, and I’m convinced I’ve barely scratched the surface. We’ve already reviewed it here, but now, I’m set to take a look at it to close out the week. As much as I liked Fallout New Vegas, I just don’t think it stacks up to its previous installment. Fallout 3, so far, has been better than Fallout New Vegas, and here are the top six reasons why.

6. Too many continuity issues. I understand that Fallout 3 isn’t related to Fallout New Vegas, but we ARE in the same universe here. And as such, there were plenty of strange details no one seems to be willing to account for. For instance, while it was good to see the Brotherhood of Steel still up and running, I expected their presence to be a lot bigger given how near to their home ground they were. And where was the Enclave? For crying out loud, the Enclave is one state away! How is it NOT interfering? Surely the Enclave didn’t lose sufficient forces in the oil rig disaster to not have a presence left in California! Surely everybody didn’t pack up for the Capitol Wasteland! And while we’re at it, we’re in Nevada this time. Aliens got their own downloadable content in Fallout 3, but we can’t go to Roswell? Area 51? I’d like to at least see the Area 2 the Boomers were talking about where they landed their upgraded weapons. I can’t find it as is. Maybe there are explanations for some of this in the likely upcoming downloadable content, but for right now, lots of strange gray areas exist.

5. Frequent bugs. Sure, Fallout 3 was not without its issues–strange animal / rock hybrids where the various horrors of the Wasteland had fused with rocks–but they’re all over in Fallout New Vegas. I have lost multiple save games to Fallout New Vegas’ strange memory issues (seemingly whenever I come out of Vault 3), and once, I fell through the floor at the train tunnel near the Boomers’ camp. I was magically deposited in front of the exit, but it was still pretty weird. My companions would appear and disappear at random. I even had problems with the loading screen locking up. That roulette wheel suddenly stopping was an active heartbreaker. Sure, there are patches now, and that’s great. But still–even with patches, plenty of people are still having troubles.

4. Forced replay value. The game depends heavily on factions. Whether you’re working with the New California Republic, Caesar’s Legion, Mr. House, or just working for an independent New Vegas, you’re working for somebody. But what this means is that you can’t see everything your first trip through. Because once you get sufficiently deep in with some faction, you’ll be shunned by the other factions. My first playthrough found me committed to an independent New Vegas, and after starting to work with Mr. House, I was told that the NCR and Caesar’s Legion weren’t interested in working with me. That means, unlike the original, you can’t do everything in one go. You essentially have to restart (or go back to saves before you find yourself committed to one faction or another) in order to see how everything comes out.

3. Relatively limited story. Where with Fallout 3, you’d find both a larger story and a whole array of little stories. Whether you’re trying to help the Brotherhood of Steel wipe out the Enclave or you’re just out to save Megaton from an atomic fireball, you had all manner of stories. But in Fallout New Vegas, you’ll often find locations that seem to have no purpose. My time at Coyote Tail Ridge was a largely pointless venture, and I still find myself wondering what it means. I can’t find any actual purpose, other than a handful of graves nearby. It seems unconnected to any story, and…it’s just there. Why is it there? The Wiki gives me some story about NCR ambush teams and the whole Great Khans thing, but is this worth making a location out of it?

2. Radio options fewer. First, it IS awesome that they got Wayne Newton to handle the voice of Mr. New Vegas. That’s great. It’s wonderful, it truly is. But that having been said, Mr. New Vegas is no Three Dog. The news does not keep up the way it did back in Fallout 3. I remember Three Dog being horrified when I sent a horde of feral ghouls rampaging through Tenpenny Tower, and being filled with hope when I got Brian Wilks a home in the Capitol Wasteland. Mr. New Vegas, meanwhile, is too busy schmoozing to invisible characters to bother too much with what I do, and that detachment is disappointing. Dammit, Wayne, I just sent a horde of Caesar’s Legion slavers to their fiery deaths in Nelson, the least you can do is stop flirting with whatever blue hair happens to be listening long enough to say something about it! Oh, you did? No, you said the NCR took it back. The NCR stood around looking stupid while I handed Dead Sea his silly little skirt, but do you mention me? Oh no. Not you.

1. Increased emphasis on speech challenges. This annoyed me, and annoyed many of the folks I talked about with this, but for some reason, Fallout New Vegas depends a lot more on speech challenges than anything else. I, like many of my contemporaries, began by tricking out my skills in firearms and explosives, lockpicks and medicine and the like. But as it turns out, the biggest part of this game seemed to be the thing I usually needed least, especially in the last go-round. Sure, in Fallout 3, if I was a smooth talker I could get some things done. But in Fallout: New Vegas, I’m at a serious disadvantage if I can’t talk straight. It’s almost preposterous how much of this game depends on my ability to talk my way out of a fight instead of blast my way out of it with something heavy, and energy based.

Let’s not forget the central thrust here. For the most part, Fallout New Vegas is a great game, a fantastic time and well worth your time to play. It just has a rough time competing with its predecessor, and hopefully, as the inevitable flood of DLC emerges, Fallout New Vegas will only get better. But as it sits right now, it just can’t beat its predecessor. The student has not yet surpassed the master…though it may.

Yes, i'm sure they would like nonfake C&C and content-blocking skill checks in skyrim.
Oh wait.

 

[Lurker King]

But on the other hand, a characteristic of morons is that they don't have a defined opinion on things. They're too dumb for that. Knowing what you want and rejecting all other things demands a certain modicum of intelligence and self-awareness

No, they are too dumb to justify their poor taste. But because they don’t understand the difference between good cRPgs and bad cRPGs, that doesn’t mean they will enjoy good cRPG games randomly, because “good” on their view is “bad” on my book.

It should be easy to "trick" these people into liking a game like New Vegas. And to wit, the game doesn't appear to have sold less than its Fallout 3 predecessor.

There is no trick in it. The game was the sequel of FO:3, uses FO:3 engine and had millions in marketing. Things they enjoy in F:NV are the filler quests and the popamoler shooting, but the things we enjoy in F:NV is the writing and reactivity. But even if the popamoler shooting and the millions in sales, you will find many posts such as these:

New Vegas has ruined fallout 3 for me

Why I hate "Fallout: New Vegas"

So why does (almost) everyone hate Fallout: New Vegas

See, in a game I'd like to play, maybe someone would say, "Hey, I sure used to enjoy games." And then in some vault or enemy camp I'd find a chess set, and I'd think, gee, someone told me he enjoys games, I'll pick this up and give it to them. They'd be all happy and something neat would happen. Maybe if this were a main plot quest, there'd be hints, where people would say, "Hey, if you make Bob happy, I bet he can hep you find the air-cleaners you need!"

This never happens in New Vegas. If you didn't get a quest, you're not going to be rewarded for trying things out. And if you DID get a quest, well, you've got a pointer on the map telling you exactly where to find the item you want, the dude to kill, the person to talk to, etc, so you don't have to actually SOLVE any problems. Just aim the mouse.

Gold, pure gold.

 

[Lurker King]

The reasons why AoD sold less than mainstream games is the "forced replay value", "the relatively limited story" and "emphasis on speech challenges", as well as "stats and skill challenges".

 

[Trashos]

There are a few things I don't understand in this interesting conversation.

- Why are we talking about New Vegas like it was a failure? Was it not a success? Sure, some people complain, and sure, some people hate the exact things we find satisfying. But that's just the way it always goes.

- New Vegas aside, I believe it is a mistake to focus on Bethesda on this topic. Bethesda is after a 20M-sales market, of course they are going to design games for idiots! It is not like they have a choice. Production and marketing costs have to be covered.
There is a huge gap between the sales of hardcore rpgs and Bethesda/Bioware targets. There is a middle ground somewhere, and that's where the discussion should be focused, imo.

- Btw, do we have examples of hardcore rpgs with good graphics (not just atmospheric) that flopped?

 

[Karellen]

Somehow this entire discussion reminds me of that lecture a few years back where the venerable Brian Moriarty argued that video games can't ever be art, because he already tried doing it and it didn't work out for him, so, clearly, it's impossible. It's this strange mixture of self-effacement - you are, after all, stating that you failed - and the arrogance to not even consider that maybe you could've done a much better job at it, or, better, somebody else might eventually get it right eventually even if you don't. It strikes me as pretty myopic.

I don't think that simply making a game of exceptional quality enough to guarantee any kind of success, and it should be plain that luck has a lot to do with it, but in some ways that's an academic point since I don't think that the new batch of "hardcore" RPGs is even at that level of quality yet. I don't think that Age of Decadence is a bad game, but it's also not good enough by a long shot that it could win over people who weren't already inculcated with its core ideas by better games like Fallout. The Souls series, a hardcore gaming posterboy as it is, did not become a success by appealing to an existing niche audience, but rather by making such a convincing case for its design philosophy that it formed a whole new (and loud and boisterous) niche audience for itself. The same, to some extent, is true of Undertale as well. I don't know if Age of Decadence could ever have become a "flavour of the month" type of success, but I think that it would have had a much better shot if it were a much better game, and lambasting all successful RPGs for more or less spurious reasons isn't really making AoD any better. I still haven't played more than the demo of Undertale, and I don't know if I ever will, but it rustles my jimmies to read someone arguing that the game had "barely any gameplay", when the gameplay in half of Age of Decadence's potential playthroughs is undetectable by modern science.

 

[Lurker King]

Why are we talking about New Vegas like it was a failure? Was it not a success?

It was a success. The point of bringing up F:NV to this discussion is to ask whether a game can be hugely successful with hardcore elements in it, such as C&C. My answer is that it can if the game also has pretty graphics, popamoler combat and filler quests. In other words, you can have one element of a hardcore cRPG if you provide other trinkets to the masses. However, even if the graphics, millions in marketing, you will still find people bitching about the C&C, dialogue checks, gated content, etc. Just read the comments cited above.

 

[Lurker King]

I don't think that Age of Decadence is a bad game, but it's also not good enough by a long shot that it could win over people who weren't already inculcated with its core ideas by better games like Fallout.

In other words, it’s an old-school game. Who would have thought!

The Souls series, a hardcore gaming posterboy as it is, did not become a success by appealing to an existing niche audience, but rather by making such a convincing case for its design philosophy that it formed a whole new (and loud and boisterous) niche audience for itself.

You mean, hardcore posterboy for fans of arcade games that didn’t played Atari or NES games. The basics of Arcade games are, well, pretty basic. Anyone can learn how to press a button to dodge and another one to hit. The challenge is in mastering this coordination of pressing buttons as the game progresses. People who pride themselves for beating the Souls series should play old console games to have a proper understanding of what arcade really means. And yeah, it’s not a cRPG by a large margin, is an arcade action game.

Hardcore cRPGs, on the other hand, are a completely different beast. To learn the basics of the systems you need patience, try and error, reasoning, etc. The basic here is not just a matter of pressing buttons and moving the joystick, but requires thinking and it’s abstract. The challenging in these games involves mastering the basics. The learning curve it is way more brutal. Since most players don’t like to think, or can't think, about stats, skills and math when they are playing games, they end up being repelled by a proper hardcore cRPG. Most of these hardcore arcade gamers couldn't understand the concept of character building if their lives depended on it.

I think that AoD would have had a much better shot if it were a much better game, and lambasting all successful RPGs for more or less spurious reasons isn't really making AoD any better.

On the contrary, for the game to be better it would imply more C&C, more brutal combat, more stat and skill checks, more gated content, and more writing. If anything, this would hurt the sales more. What is good for people who have good taste is bad for the vast majority of retards. If by successful cRPG you mean games that receive appraise from the mainstream, than that it’s obvious we are talking about bad cRPGs. This is like saying that Britney Spears is better than good jazz bands because it is selling more.

it rustles my jimmies to read someone arguing that the game had "barely any gameplay", when the gameplay in half of Age of Decadence's potential playthroughs is undetectable by modern science.

It’s only undetectable by retards who can’t understand the concept of real reactivity.

 

[DosBuster]

I don't think this site understands people.

Games are an art-form, and an art form is designed to serve the consumer via entertainment. Make them happier. And some people, naturally, develop a much greater interest and go into the niche-world where people throw off jargon that makes others outside that circle look at them funny. Which is fine, every art form has that group of people, but when it comes to hardcore rpgs it doesn't succeed in fulfilling the one role that games serve in our every day life. To provide instant entertainment. Whether it's dumb fun or a good plot it's something we all need in our lives and hardcore rpgs can't do that unless you put in a certain amount of time or are forced to learn a bunch of complex systems.

That being said, these games can garner cult value over the years by people who want to think they're smarter than the average crowd.

 

[Shadenuat]

Vault Dweller what do you think about XCOM EU success? All journos bitched that it's a difficult game, hard to get in, kills player all the time, plus it's turn-based and with RNG.

There's a thing that action games and AAA RPGs have that hardcore RPGs often do not - great graphics & voice acting. What if AoD had all of that and polish of a Firaxis game - wouldn't it sell like a Firaxis game? (minus refunds for difficulty)

 

[Lurker King]

I don't think this site understands people.

And I don’t think you understand what it’s the issue here. When every publisher is focused on funding streamlined games because that is what sells, you don’t have more studios that make complex games for cRPG connoisseurs. It’s not just as if we are talking about different genres here, like comparing Britney Spears with Mozart, for instance. It’s worse. It’s like classic musicians and composers were all forced to be pop singers, and this would still be labelled as classic music. To insist in the analogy, in this thread we are discussing whether good classic music can sell like pop music, and a bunch of imbeciles are arguing that it can, but they are using pop singers like Britney Spears as a proof.

 

[likaq]

It’s only undetectable by combatfags for whom everything not related to combat = not gameplay.

Small fix.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Everytime Vault Dweller opens his mouth, he reminds me why I hate him since he sounds like such a moron. "RPGs cant sell, oh except for half the exceptions". If there is an exception to the rule, maybe the rule was bad in the first place? This is the essence of creative thinking, THINK why some games sell and some don't and it's not because "just cuz".

There are no exceptions. None.

There are reasons why certain games that have stats and TB combat sold well, which doesn't make them exceptions to the rule. If one wants to make a proper RPG, it will have a very limited sales range compared to virtually any other genre. If you think that Original Sin is similar to, say, Fallout, Arcanum, or PST, but sold better because it had better marketing and production values, then you are the moron. It's a very good game, much like Witcher 3 is a very good game, but they aren't the kind of games we're talking about here.

AoD hasn't sold because it has fundamentally failed to relate to the player, not because of whatever exterior threats VD has conjured up in this thread. Not that I care, dumbfucks that can't see what's behind the curtain will always fail in creative industries.

AoD sold better than many other indie RPGs (I assume they all failed to relate to the player).

 

[Vault Dweller]

It would sell much more crappily. Why? Because Bethesda has worked hard to develop a certain kind of play experience that their audience really enjoys. And that audience has already many times stated their likes and dislikes for us all to read.

My problem with statements like these is the following:

On one hand, we make fun of the Bethesda audience. We call them morons.

But on the other hand, a characteristic of morons is that they don't have a defined opinion on things. They're too dumb for that. Knowing what you want and rejecting all other things demands a certain modicum of intelligence and self-awareness. You see this in political surveys, where "moderates" routinely test as having lower knowledge and IQ than both conservatives and libruls.

It should be easy to "trick" these people into liking a game like New Vegas. And to wit, the game doesn't appear to have sold less than its Fallout 3 predecessor.

The way I see it, there is a huge audience for sandbox games where you run around killing things. It's not that these people are morons, it's that they prefer mindless entertainment (not that different from what Diablo delivers). The formula is simple and it works. Deviate from the formula and you start losing people, which is why New Vegas generated tons of complaints.

Unfortunately, we can't properly evaluate New Vegas performance because it was another FO3 game which came with a built-in audience. It's easy to assume that at least 60-70% of Fallout 3 players bought NV simply because they wanted more of the same.

 

[Pope Amole II]

It should be easy to "trick" these people into liking a game like New Vegas. And to wit, the game doesn't appear to have sold less than its Fallout 3 predecessor.

Steamspy agrees. There's also consoles, of course, which can't be checked as easily, but still, the growth is really strong (as is the metacritic 84 irony).

 

[Vault Dweller]

Vault Dweller what do you think about XCOM EU success?

A dumbed down, shallow game that's easy on Hard (unless you're a moron) that doesn't come anywhere close to the original or Xenonauts? I don't think anyone would call it a complex game.

There's a thing that action games and AAA RPGs have that hardcore RPGs often do not - great graphics & voice acting. What if AoD had all of that and polish of a Firaxis game - wouldn't it sell like a Firaxis game? (minus refunds for difficulty)

I'd say it's more than graphics and voice acting that separates. The trend is to dumb down streamline gameplay to make it more "welcoming". That's the key factor. If you look at the major studios the trend is very clear: from Daggerafall to Morrowind to Oblivion to Skyrim, from BG2 to KOTOR to Inquisition.

A better question is would Xenonauts have sold better if it had better graphics?

XCOM - Owners: 3,085,553 ± 37,971
Xenonauts - Owners: 201,402 ± 9,755 - sold 6% (!) of what XCOM sold.

 

[Trashos]

It was a success. The point of bringing up F:NV to this discussion is to ask whether a game can be hugely successful with hardcore elements in it, such as C&C. My answer is that it can if the game also has pretty graphics, popamoler combat and filler quests. In other words, you can have one element of a hardcore cRPG if you provide other trinkets to the masses. However, even if the graphics, millions in marketing, you will still find people bitching about the C&C, dialogue checks, gated content, etc. Just read the comments cited above.

Lurker King, your assumptions are tempting to accept, but they are still assumptions. We are missing data. You said:

- Graphics.
I 'll give you graphics, this is probably a fact. But none of us would mind if hardcore rpgs had good graphics, would we?

- Popamoler combat.
May be true, but I am not completely convinced. Yes, this is the assumption that the industry is going by, but they have so many failures that I don't think they have proven anything. While I am not saying that you are definitely not correct, has anybody made a polished shiny game with good combat and a decent marketing budget that failed? I don't think so.

Again, I am not talking about Skyrim-like sales, but sales of a few million copies are not necessarily out of the question.

- Filler quests.
I am not buying this at all. If anything, Bioware's forums were full of people complaining about the filler quests when DAI was released. Some reviewers complained too, it doesn't seem like it worked out well for them.

Now, I am not here to argue that consumers generally are not idiots, because we agree that they are. However, maybe we disagree on the size of the hardcore-friendly market. Which is OK, because it has not really been tested.

Which is fine, every art form has that group of people, but when it comes to hardcore rpgs it doesn't succeed in fulfilling the one role that games serve in our every day life. To provide instant entertainment. Whether it's dumb fun or a good plot it's something we all need in our lives and hardcore rpgs can't do that unless you put in a certain amount of time or are forced to learn a bunch of complex systems.

That being said, these games can garner cult value over the years by people who want to think they're smarter than the average crowd.

There is no fundamental reason why entertainment in gaming should necessarily be "instant". Sure, instant entertainment is easy to market, but this does not mean that it is the only kind of gaming entertainment, that it is the best kind of entertainment, or that there is no sizeable market for other types of entertainment.

There are even groups of people that have been trained to dislike instant entertainment, like geeks for example and others. It is not just a matter of elitism like you are implying.

 

[Shadenuat]

I'd say it's more than graphics and voice acting that separates. The trend is to dumb down streamline gameplay to make it more "welcoming". That's the key factor.

But conceptually (judging by what Fargo said during development of W2, just the concept of turn-based/party based game made publishers puke) it's not a game that should sell so much. Sure it has name and reputation of studio behind it, but it's still a game where you can miss a shot from shotgun with 95% chance or lose because you're a retard and couldn't deal with RNG when building your base. It is hard for those 96%. How did people know that this turn-based game is for them to make a decision and accept it (and buy it)?

I personally believe that presentation is what makes or breaks the game. And AoD is not particularly apt at that, due to outdated (and ugly) engine and other stuff (for example, Underrail is pretty, has better tutorial in comparison, it's easier to understand what to do in the game, where to find rats to shoot, etc.). Grimrock also did well in that respect, and that's a game where you solve puzzles and fall to your death for 25 levels.

Also for a studio with almost no reputation whatsoever (AoD just reached release) you seem overly pessimistic. Note that developers like Paradox shaped their reputation and games for years and years, and continue to do so to achieve success. It's not just "people like building empires but hate RPGs lol". Same with Souls series - they were basically abandoned and needed time to become sleeping hit.