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

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

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

Shadenuat

Arcane
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
11,969
Location
Russia
I think it's worth mentioning that Legends of Eisenwald featured (IMO) prettier graphics/better production values than AoD and that STILL didn't save the game from the "niche within a niche" curse
In terms of selling a story, selling historical medieval setting is even harder than anything else.
Crowd that is interested in gambesons and bacinets is even smaller than general RPG crowd (look at PoE art thread during development where I and others fought against people who like flame vinyls on their armor).
And LoE itself is a Disciples clone. People who liked Disciples is also a small crowd (who even remembers last Disciples game? I think series died at II or something).
Yet it is still harder to get into LoE than Disciples, and writing is not that interesting (I played LoE for a while).
 
Last edited:
Unwanted

The Nameless Pun

Unwanted
Joined
Aug 29, 2015
Messages
224
The thing about rpgs and math is it's all founded upon relational math. Fans of hardcore rpgs tend to be the sort of people who can do relational math without even thinking about it. They don't even notice they're doing it. They read associative patterns and learn them without any effort whatsoever. As in, being an elf means I get this and this and this, and if I mix that with being a fighter then it will do this and this and this, and being a fighter will get me this and this and this, and then if I add a level of magic-user, that will change me in this and this and this way. Thing of it is, none of this math is particular complex in isolation. Put it all together, though, and the Player has to start thinking about number patterns. And that's where ya lose most of the public.

Things like Sudoku can have quite complex puzzle challenges, but they don't require you to look beyond the patterns directly in front of you, nor do they require you to learn and apply multiple overlays on top of patterns, such as equipment, spell bonuses and magic items (which all stack and don't stack with various choices made on the character sheet). These elements are why the public often calls rpgs Excel sheets. - A common epithet used also for grognard strategy games.

And it's often not that the public couldn't learn the skills of rpg, it's that they really really really don't want to. They find the entire concept of rpg boring, and when they are taking entertainment, they don't want to be bored. They want to have "fun and relax".
I find your opinione extremely appealing but sincerely, deeply flawed. You talk about associative math and complex analytical mental processes as if rpg players had some kind of mind power akin to those of professor X. I find this really strange since our brains can do a lot of complex thinking in the background without us even noticing, and I don't feel like a genius when I play to Fallout and calculate the effect a strength of 4 coupled with a melee skill of 90% have in terms of Combat efficacy. Maybe you refer to other rpgs, but the fact is, when I stop playing and go to university, I get my ass kicked by the professor or a friend of mine who thinks all videogames are childish things. My Point being, anyone can play, or even better, learn to play a crpg, they simply need patience. Most of the skills needed to play an rpg are basic calculation skills and associative processes anyone can do, I just don't like the idea of feeling superior just because I Like numbers. That is if I didn't misunderstand your post.
 

Telengard

Arcane
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
1,621
Location
The end of every place
The thing about rpgs and math is it's all founded upon relational math. Fans of hardcore rpgs tend to be the sort of people who can do relational math without even thinking about it. They don't even notice they're doing it. They read associative patterns and learn them without any effort whatsoever. As in, being an elf means I get this and this and this, and if I mix that with being a fighter then it will do this and this and this, and being a fighter will get me this and this and this, and then if I add a level of magic-user, that will change me in this and this and this way. Thing of it is, none of this math is particular complex in isolation. Put it all together, though, and the Player has to start thinking about number patterns. And that's where ya lose most of the public.

Things like Sudoku can have quite complex puzzle challenges, but they don't require you to look beyond the patterns directly in front of you, nor do they require you to learn and apply multiple overlays on top of patterns, such as equipment, spell bonuses and magic items (which all stack and don't stack with various choices made on the character sheet). These elements are why the public often calls rpgs Excel sheets. - A common epithet used also for grognard strategy games.

And it's often not that the public couldn't learn the skills of rpg, it's that they really really really don't want to. They find the entire concept of rpg boring, and when they are taking entertainment, they don't want to be bored. They want to have "fun and relax".
I find your opinione extremely appealing but sincerely, deeply flawed. You talk about associative math and complex analytical mental processes as if rpg players had some kind of mind power akin to those of professor X. I find this really strange since our brains can do a lot of complex thinking in the background without us even noticing, and I don't feel like a genius when I play to Fallout and calculate the effect a strength of 4 coupled with a melee skill of 90% have in terms of Combat efficacy. Maybe you refer to other rpgs, but the fact is, when I stop playing and go to university, I get my ass kicked by the professor or a friend of mine who thinks all videogames are childish things. My Point being, anyone can play, or even better, learn to play a crpg, they simply need patience. Most of the skills needed to play an rpg are basic calculation skills and associative processes anyone can do, I just don't like the idea of feeling superior just because I Like numbers. That is if I didn't misunderstand your post.
Don't they teach in school that different people's brains work differently, that there are different types of intelligence, and some people are really strong in one or more areas?

I suppose not.

Okay, real people don't work like D&D, where there's some one thing called Intelligence. "Intelligence" is a label that people place on a number of traits. If an individual has several of those traits in abundance, then he is labeled intelligent. And interestingly, the traits that people list vary from culture to culture. But for this discussion, let's bare bones it. There are some people who are naturally gifted at reading emotions. Some people are naturally gifted at memorization. Some people are gifted at attention to detail and seeing number patterns. Etc. To speak of it as if it's a super-power is pretty stupid. It's just standard brain stuff.

If you grab an old File/Sort test (multiple choice, with a six-digit number on the left, 5 numbers on the right with only one number set being exactly like the one on the left, fill in the dot) and give it to a group of people, you'll find some people are really fast and accurate at that test, others not so much. Similarly, some people can associate the word "Elf" with 8 different traits, process that information quickly, and be ready to make decisions based upon it without even giving it a thought. Others don't pick up that kind of detail anywhere near so quickly, have to spend much more time re-going over the information to learn it, and tend to treat the act of doing so as if it were work. In other words, boring. And the opposite side of the spectrum, there are people whose brains cannot make such connections without studying it over and over and over for months on end. When that last group play p&p (rare though that is), they tend to just do whatever other people in the group tell them to do.

That's life.

EDIT: Keep in mind, it's not just learning what Elf is, either. It's learning Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Half-Orc, and Human, and then mixing that in a combo-pattern with the traits of Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric, and Thief, and then combing THAT with the various traits of equipment, and then combining THAT with irregular boosts from spells. One processes all of that information, and combines it to produce various results in order to achieve the desired outcome.

That's a large amount of data to read, absorb, evaluate (that's the tricky bit), and be ready to make exacting and predictive decisions upon. And that's for the easy version of D&D.
 
Last edited:

Azarkon

Arcane
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,989
Azarkon arguments can be all summarize into something like this: But you can sell hundreds of thousands of old-school hardcore turn-based cRPGs! Just like at these games! He then presents a list of popamole eye-candy MMOs pseudo-combat made in a hurry poor excuse of cRPgs that are exactly the opposite of hardcore cRPGs. If you are not selling like them, you are doing something wrong, you fool! Just look at Diablo, PoE, etc.

You can convince yourself that "hardcore RPGs" only consist of titles such as Age of Decadence, Underrail, and Arcanum, but in that case you're merely engaged in circular logic ie: "hardcore RPGs don't sell well. Therefore, any game that does sell well, isn't a hardcore RPG." My own opinion is that the "hardcore camp" doth try too hard to be "hardcore." In actuality, most of the Codex's readership probably arrived on the site via one of the many mainstream RPGs from the isometric era - ie Fallout, Baldur's Gate, PS:T. Two of these games are, at times, described as "cult," but they all sold hundreds of thousands of copies and aren't direct analogies to their indie imitators today. Were we to go back even further, the Wizardry & Ultima games a % of Codex fans hold dear were very much mainstream titles. Thus when Bioware talked about the "RPG renaissance," they were indirectly referring to an earlier era when RPGs were among the most popular and successful video games in the industry.

Ironically, such games and their imitators eg Vogel today are frequently described by Codex members as "hardcore RPGs."


Holy shit.

It's a wonder you haven't earned yourself a dumbfuck tag for such a display of rhetorical idiocy. "Hey look guys, he said that Skyrim sold well as a RPG. HE MUST BE RETARDED."

Do you have the reading comprehension of a ten year old?
 

Azarkon

Arcane
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,989
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.

You act as though systematic choices & consequences are the holy grail of CRPGs, when in actuality, they have never been. You also fail to see that Age of Decadence is not the only and in fact not even the primary "hardcore RPG" under discussion. When I first made my posts the examples I had in mind were games such as Eisenwald, Underrail, Xulima. You and your Age of Decadence buddies hijacked the thread, effectively speaking, by turning it into an argument over why Age of Decadence didn't sell.

It's an interesting question, but as before, I'm pretty sure it didn't have much to do with the implementation of C&C, which is unique to Age of Decadence.

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.

You'd have to be very dense to believe that sales represent nothing. In extremis, a game that sells 0 copies is appreciated by 0 people and therefore of no value whatsoever to industry/society/humanity. Elitism allows a minority of consumers to argue and defend that their preferences are superior despite the failure of the majority to notice it, but for such preferences to endure, they must be backed by facts, and facts are rather lacking in this thread. All I hear is a constant litany of "if you don't enjoy what we do, then you have shit taste," which might explain why your camp is increasingly losing its hold on the Codex - because in the interests of maintaining elitism, you have lost your grasp on objectivity.

Repeat after me: not every CRPG that sells poorly is a masterpiece; not every CRPG that sells well is shit. I happen to be interested in what makes CRPGs sell, and have no reason to believe a shitty argument of the form, "quality CRPGs never sell," which sounds as though it fits in the mouths of an angsty high-schooler shouting "everything sucks."

And I am 100% certain you cannot apply 99% of the arguments you've made in this thread to games such as Eisenwald, Xulima, and Serpent in the Staglands. If your sole purpose here is to defend Age of Decadence, fine, have at it. But that's not the subject of the thread.
 
Last edited:

Celerity

Takes 1337 hours to realise it's shit.
Village Idiot Possibly Retarded
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Messages
1,096
So I'm not sure about Eisenwald and Serpent. I can say with 100% confidence the reason why Xulima didn't sell well is lack of marketing, with the distant second being a very front loaded experience.

I know this because Xulima doesn't advertise. At all. Even when it goes on sale, the developers do not announce the sale unless someone tweets it at them and sometimes not even then, or it is delayed by days. I can respect them for working instead of hanging around Twitter all day but there is a balance, and they need word of themselves out there. It's such that I specifically look for these sorts of games, and I believe I first discovered it around May of last year... which is 6 months after it came out on full release + however much time it had in Early Access. If your target audience can easily miss your game, what about everyone else? Exactly. From seeing the threads for Eisenwald and Serpent it seems their developers are doing the same thing but I am not personally familiar with those cases.

The second is the game being very front loaded, both in terms of introducing a lot of mechanics at once, and having the beginning of the game be the hardest part. Pretty much every negative review is someone fought the Ogre/Shrooms early and got rekt, or just couldn't beat normal enemies, etc. And yes, a good number of those people probably wouldn't have enjoyed the game regardless and shouldn't have bought it in the first place but difficulty should increase, not decrease as you progress and that is also true of complexity.

Despite both of those flaws it still sold relatively well, but in absolute terms I think their market share is larger than what they currently have.

I believe that if someone ever made a hardcore RPG, and engaged in healthy and honest advertisement it would sell millions. Bravely Default did ok as a modern turn based RPG.
 

Azarkon

Arcane
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,989
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.

As a PnP fan, strategy gamer, fan of early roguelike games, MUDs, all sorts of text-based games, storyfag elitist, and harsh critic of DAI, Oblivion, Pillars of Eternity, etc., it is hilarious to hear myself described as a "lover of bad CRPGs such as DAI and Skyrim." Because apparently using such games as examples of high financial success automatically makes me a fan of their gameplay & story.

But you know what, I've heard the same spiel a dozen times from the elitists of diverse gaming communities. The Codex is certainly not the worst when it comes to it. That prize has to go to the elitist societies of MMORPGs, by every measure the most hardcore of all elitist gamers. Yet the arguments are all the same, in the end: "Game X > other games because of Z, a list of features that is all-important, regardless of sales, popular opinion, practicality, etc., because we said so." Exists in every game, and had you not been aware of the phenomenon of elitism, you'd even think they were paid to promote those games.
 

Azarkon

Arcane
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,989
The thing about rpgs and math is it's all founded upon relational math. Fans of hardcore rpgs tend to be the sort of people who can do relational math without even thinking about it. They don't even notice they're doing it. They read associative patterns and learn them without any effort whatsoever. As in, being an elf means I get this and this and this, and if I mix that with being a fighter then it will do this and this and this, and being a fighter will get me this and this and this, and then if I add a level of magic-user, that will change me in this and this and this way. Thing of it is, none of this math is particular complex in isolation. Put it all together, though, and the Player has to start thinking about number patterns. And that's where ya lose most of the public.

Things like Sudoku can have quite complex puzzle challenges, but they don't require you to look beyond the patterns directly in front of you, nor do they require you to learn and apply multiple overlays on top of patterns, such as equipment, spell bonuses and magic items (which all stack and don't stack with various choices made on the character sheet). These elements are why the public often calls rpgs Excel sheets. - A common epithet used also for grognard strategy games.

And it's often not that the public couldn't learn the skills of rpg, it's that they really really really don't want to. They find the entire concept of rpg boring, and when they are taking entertainment, they don't want to be bored. They want to have "fun and relax".

Taken individually, arguments of this form have a certain logic to them. They appeal to the "hardcore CRPG fan's" sense of superiority, makes a claim that cannot be refuted because it is based on a lack of actual evidence, and finishes it up with an intelligence association ie "CRPGs = relational math." Propagandists would be proud.

But there's a central flaw: it only works when your audience is as ignorant as you presume them to be, ie drinking the full "hardcore" coolaid.

In actuality, the amount of math in just about all the "hardcore CRPGs" discussed is less than in a typical strategy game, even a less hardcore strategy game, and simultaneously it's a lot easier to achieve success in these games, all of which are single-player, than it is in the min/max world of strategy gaming. After all, you can beat Age of Decadence just by following a walkthrough. There's no doing this with any competitive strategy game, which tend to be played between human opponents.

You guys' response? "Well they're strategy games, not CRPGs, so it doesn't count because, uh, strategy fans have already accepted it."

In which case, the inference to draw, actually, is that CRPG fans = idiots, strategy fans = smarts, and hardcore CRPG fans are smart wannabes who have a soft spot in their hearts for storyfaggotry. Suddenly the label is not so appealing.

Try to refute this: CRPG combat is a dumbed down form of PnP RPG combat, which is in turn a dumbed down form of tactical strategy game combat. Because I am fairly sure very few of you making these sorts of arguments about the "complexity" of CRPGs have ever played a full-blown strategy game. And yes, those do sell.
 
Last edited:

Azarkon

Arcane
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,989
I think it's worth mentioning that Legends of Eisenwald featured (IMO) prettier graphics/better production values than AoD and that STILL didn't save the game from the "niche within a niche" curse
In terms of selling a story, selling historical medieval setting is even harder than anything else.
Crowd that is interested in gambesons and bacinets is even smaller than general RPG crowd (look at PoE art thread during development where I and others fought against people who like flame vinyls on their armor).
And LoE itself is a Disciples clone. People who liked Disciples is also a small crowd (who even remembers last Disciples game? I think series died at II or something).
Yet it is still harder to get into LoE than Disciples, and writing is not that interesting (I played LoE for a while).

Finally, observance of the fact that setting matters.

And in terms of Disciples, the first two games were relatively successful, but the series went down hill when they out sourced to an external developer. Similar fate to Heroes of Might and Magic. Attempts at simplifying the gameplay of the latter and increasing the complexity of the former did nothing for their appeal. What the developers failed to understand, in both cases, is that these two franchises were highly valued for their unique aesthetics and style of turn-based combat, which later editions failed to capture by trying to reinvent the wheel.

A lesson, once again, in how not to do nostalgia.
 
Last edited:

Azarkon

Arcane
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,989
So, why don't "normal people" play cRPGs if they're so smart

The problem is in your assumption that normal people is smart. 90% of the world population hate Shakespeare, hate classic movies, don’t know the difference between good and bad wine if you hit them with the bottles in the head, etc. Why this would be different in gaming, especially in a demanding and complex genre such as cRPGs? Why it is so difficult for you to understand that most people can be stupid or have bad taste? I don’t get it. It’s this some kind of joke, or really think that a bunch of people can’t be wrong because they are a majority?

Civilization franchise, total sales: 21 million copies

Civilization math: http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Mathematics_of_Civilization_V

Problem: Civilization is a strategy game, and strategy gamers look down on CRPGs?
 

Azarkon

Arcane
Joined
Oct 7, 2005
Messages
2,989
Skyrim is CoD with swords and dragons and not RPG even one such dull and balanced like PoE was and Comrade VD was proven to be the true Comrade and Bro for not liking this Undertale hipster shyte... So this thread at last has delivered. +M

Skyrim is as much of a CRPG as Daggerfall and Gothic. Hard to accept, I know, but there it is - the CRPGs the Codex worships are not always traditional turn-based games. In fact, I'm pretty sure the bulk of them aren't.

Just have a look at the top 10 from this list:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/rpg-codexs-top-50-crpgs-results-and-reviews.89680/

1. Planescape Torment - not turn-based
2. Fallout 1
3. Fallout 2
4. Baldur's Gate 2 - not turn-based
5. Arcanum
6. Vampire: the Masquerade - not turn-based
7. Morrowind - not turn-based
8. Fallout: New Vegas - not turn-based
9. Gothic 2 - not turn-based

10. Wizardry 8

So, 6/10 games not turn-based, with Morrowind being on the top 10 list... Yeah, Skyrim is not a CRPG.

Top 5 games also basically confirms that most of the Codex are Black Isle/old Bioware fans, but then that's practically a given as the Codex was basically a refuge for Interplay/Black Isle fans after the company closed and Bioware went down the wrong path.
 
Last edited:

TigerKnee

Arcane
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
1,920
The fact of the matter is that the enormous majority of the world's cognitive elite doesn't give a rat's ass about computer RPGs, and if their standard for quality entertainment is Shakespeare and wine tasting (perhaps both at the same time?), I'm not entirely sure they ought to.
Fun fact: Shakespeare was considered popamole of his time - his plays were considered about as much art value <-> entertainment as going to a whorehouse. The grognard equivalent would be writing Latin poetry.
 

makiavelli747

Dumbfuck!
Dumbfuck Village Idiot Shitposter
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
402
oh my god, somebody is really thinking that killing monsters is a game for intelligent people
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
The fact of the matter is that the enormous majority of the world's cognitive elite doesn't give a rat's ass about computer RPGs, and if their standard for quality entertainment is Shakespeare and wine tasting (perhaps both at the same time?), I'm not entirely sure they ought to.
Fun fact: Shakespeare was considered popamole of his time - his plays were considered about as much art value <-> entertainment as going to a whorehouse. The grognard equivalent would be writing Latin poetry.

Nah, not entirely true. He had royal patronage, and a tremendous amount of prestige.

The thing with Shakespeare is that he also did low-brow popamole comedy. It's not that people watched Hamlet and Lear and thought 'that will make a nice easy-to-digest romcom snack with my ale'. It's that he also did Midsummer Night's Dream and Taming of the Shrew.

He was also more interested in human nature, and people as political animals, whereas the intellectual trend at the time was for exploring the nature of morality/free will and similar abstract concepts. I.e. when Shakespeare got intellectual, it was to do with fairly earthy, grounded ideas about human nature. This meant that he wasn't viewed as being quite in the same tier, intellectually, as Marlowe and Johnson. Not the same thing as being considered popamole.

And even then, Shakespeare was rated as being superior to them as a poet, albeit not as an intellectual. People did notice, for example, that Marlow sticks to the same iambic rhythm without variation for the entirety of Dr Faustus, while Shakespeare by that point was far more adventurous and skilled in playing with different variations in rhythm in his verse.

Hell, even today, the literary consensus is that Johnson was more highbrow than Shakespeare, but just not as good a wordsmith.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,035
In actuality, most of the Codex's readership probably arrived on the site via one of the many mainstream RPGs from the isometric era - ie Fallout, Baldur's Gate, PS:T. Two of these games are, at times, described as "cult," but they all sold hundreds of thousands of copies and aren't direct analogies to their indie imitators today.
Fallout and PST sold poorly. Sure, poorly in the context of a publisher-backed game means hundreds of thousands of copies (400k each, if I recall correctly), but it was still poor even by mid 90s standards. In comparison BG sold over 2 million copies. See the difference? Diablo sold millions of copies as well, which is why these two games (and not Fallout or PST) are credited with resurrecting the genre by showing how to make "rpgs" more appealing.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,035
There are too many factors there to narrow it down to a single threshold: license, names attached (like Brian Mitsoda, for example), media attention, production values (varies from one game to another for obvious reasons), bundles, price, 75-90% off discounts, etc. For example, Expedition: Conquistadors sold 127k, but it participated it 2 bundles, which makes the official number of copies sold meaningless.

There is a reason why most "Incline" games in the Sales of Incline thread are sitting in two categories: under 10k and between 20 and 50. So I'd say that most newly released RPGs would go in the first category. A stronger, better covered game will get into 20-50 category. The champions will end up in 70-100k category, which is pretty good if sold at a reasonable price. I'd say that a new developer thinking of making a hardcore RPG shouldn't even dream of 70-100k copies but try his best not to end up in the 'under 10k' category, aiming to sell 40-50k copies.
 
Last edited:

Grampy_Bone

Arcane
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
3,686
Location
Wandering the world randomly in search of maps
In actuality, most of the Codex's readership probably arrived on the site via one of the many mainstream RPGs from the isometric era - ie Fallout, Baldur's Gate, PS:T. Two of these games are, at times, described as "cult," but they all sold hundreds of thousands of copies and aren't direct analogies to their indie imitators today.
Fallout and PST sold poorly. Sure, poorly in the context of a publisher-backed game means hundreds of thousands of copies (400k each, if I recall correctly), but it was still poor even by mid 90s standards. In comparison BG sold over 2 million copies. See the difference? Diablo sold millions of copies as well, which is why these two games (and not Fallout or PST) are credited with resurrecting the genre by showing how to make "rpgs" more appealing.

Took the words out of my mouth. It's odd to conflate Planescape and Fallout with Baldur's Gate. 'Hardcoreness' vs 'Casualosity' should be seen more as a spectrum than a binary switch. People say BG is more hardcore than Skyrim today, but it was undoubtedly more casual than Fallout when they were released. Bioware benefits from historical revisionism; their games have always been more casual than their contemporaries.

Then again, I recall reading on a forum back in 2001 a bunch of Fallout fans griping that BG received vastly more promotion and marketing than Fallout.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
4,198
RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In
Hardcore RPGs could sell a lot if they featured animu art and were made by Japanese people. Weebs will buy fucking everything on STEAM this days.
 

Karellen

Arcane
Joined
Jan 3, 2012
Messages
327
In actuality, most of the Codex's readership probably arrived on the site via one of the many mainstream RPGs from the isometric era - ie Fallout, Baldur's Gate, PS:T. Two of these games are, at times, described as "cult," but they all sold hundreds of thousands of copies and aren't direct analogies to their indie imitators today.
Fallout and PST sold poorly. Sure, poorly in the context of a publisher-backed game means hundreds of thousands of copies (400k each, if I recall correctly), but it was still poor even by mid 90s standards. In comparison BG sold over 2 million copies. See the difference? Diablo sold millions of copies as well, which is why these two games (and not Fallout or PST) are credited with resurrecting the genre by showing how to make "rpgs" more appealing.

Took the words out of my mouth. It's odd to conflate Planescape and Fallout with Baldur's Gate. 'Hardcoreness' vs 'Casualosity' should be seen more as a spectrum than a binary switch. People say BG is more hardcore than Skyrim today, but it was undoubtedly more casual than Fallout when they were released. Bioware benefits from historical revisionism; their games have always been more casual than their contemporaries.

Then again, I recall reading on a forum back in 2001 a bunch of Fallout fans griping that BG received vastly more promotion and marketing than Fallout.

You know, I'm having a really hard time thinking of a coherent reason as to why Baldur's Gate should be considered more casual than Planescape: Torment. I think it's a given that Fallout is on a different level, but when you look at what Planescape: Torment is actually made of, you'd see a fairly linear game with somewhat broken mechanics and notably few meaningful options that would substantially differentiate playthroughs either through character building or companion choices. You'd also see somewhat inconsistent and frequently cosmetic reactivity that features occasional clever touches, but overall doesn't impact the essentially linear nature of the game. PS:T has a lot of notably good writing, and the setting is more interesting and less popular than Forgotten Realms, but I'm just not seeing the RPG mechanics that would elevate it to a higher level of sophistication than Baldur's Gate.
 

Grampy_Bone

Arcane
Joined
Jan 25, 2016
Messages
3,686
Location
Wandering the world randomly in search of maps
You know, I'm having a really hard time thinking of a coherent reason as to why Baldur's Gate should be considered more casual than Planescape: Torment. I think it's a given that Fallout is on a different level, but when you look at what Planescape: Torment is actually made of, you'd see a fairly linear game with somewhat broken mechanics and notably few meaningful options that would substantially differentiate playthroughs either through character building or companion choices. You'd also see somewhat inconsistent and frequently cosmetic reactivity that features occasional clever touches, but overall doesn't impact the essentially linear nature of the game. PS:T has a lot of notably good writing, and the setting is more interesting and less popular than Forgotten Realms, but I'm just not seeing the RPG mechanics that would elevate it to a higher level of sophistication than Baldur's Gate.

Fair enough. All I can point to is the non-standard fantasy setting. Forgotten Realms appeals to a wider audience.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,035
Sure, PST was a linear game (for the record so was BG) with crappy RT combat lifted straight out of BG, but the main difference was that PST was a text-heavy game with philosophical undertones and a zombie-looking man character. The game was about exploring the main character's past lives and coming up with an answer to a a fairly philosophical question. There was combat and monsters but they were in the background. In comparison, BG was silly heroic fantasy which is what Bio peddled from day one. Combat was the main and only meal and there was nothing to do there but slay monsters.
 
Self-Ejected

Lurker King

Self-Ejected
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
1,865,419
You can convince yourself that "hardcore RPGs" only consist of titles such as Age of Decadence, Underrail, and Arcanum, but in that case you're merely engaged in circular logic ie: "hardcore RPGs don't sell well. Therefore, any game that does sell well, isn't a hardcore RPG."

We have some assumptions in this thread, assumptions that have an inner logic, but you are presenting them individually, and as loose as possible, to suit your poor argumentation. First, let’s talk about what is hardcore. “Hardcore” is a relative term. A game x is hardcore in comparison to another game y, if it’s too difficult in comparison to y. In that sense, BG2 is hardcore relatively to Skyrm, but it is popamoler in comparison to Darklands. When I talk about hardcore, what I have in mind games that are difficult in comparison to games such as BG2, Fallout, Kotor, etc. Since I don’t have half the knowledge of most old-school players here, they will probably have an even more strict conception of what is hardcore. And yeah, old-school it’s also a relative term. I’m an old-school player to a causal gamer, but not to Vault Dweller, for instance.

Secondly, we have to make a distinction between the ideal cRPGs and cRPGs in general. You can appreciate a cRPG even though he lacks some of the features you think are important. Fallout, for instance, is a great cRPG, because it has great writing, mature themes, C&C and was super innovative. However, the combat is bad, it’s too easy, and it also had some silly jokes, etc. The fact that a game I think it’s important is not hardcore should tell you that for me being hardcore is a desirable and important feature, but not the only feature that defines the quality of a cRPG. The same thing holds for other things, such as turn-based combat, good combat system, etc. You can have different combinations. Gothic 2 is hardcore, but has real-time combat, while Fallout is not hardcore, but has turn-based combat.

Thirdly, we have the subject of this thread. What people like Vault Dweller is arguing is that decent cRPGs have some features to a certain degree, and this will make them sell less in comparison to other games, especially if the feature in question is being hardcore. The list of cursed features includes complex character building, solid combat system, turn-based combat, heavy-texted writing, stat and skill checks, deep C&C, etc. Thus, what we want to know is whether decent cRPGs in general, not just hardcore cRPGs, can sell well.

Your counter-examples of decent cRPGs that sold well either involve a feature that is not properly implemented, or a game that is not really a cRPG, or a number of sales that it is not significant. For instance, your example of a turn-based game that sold well is a popamoler X-COM, but since the combat system is a joke, the turn-based is a fluffy feature.

Your example of a hardcore game that sold well are the SOUL series, but they are arcade games, not cRPGs. Players don’t have to think about allocation of stat and skill points, etc. This challenge involved in character building is what we have in mind when we talk about the hardcore feature repelling players from cRPGs.

You also argued that some games are proper cRPGs by our standards, such as Fallout and PS:T, sold thousands of copies. You think that this is an undeniable proof that proper cRPGs can sell well. But again, that number is not significant for a medium studio and they sold so much less than bad cRPGs such as Diablo. This is understandable, because Diablo doesn’t have the dialogue checks of Fallout or is heavy-texted as PS:T. People already pointed this to you, but you ignored the arguments and it’s still repeating the same thing.

We are not assuming what is at stake, you are. What you need to show is a simple thing: a game that sold like Diablo when was released (years of steam bundle doesn’t count), but it’s a proper cRPG. For instance, if you think that the popamoler XCOM is a proper cRPG and has a decent combat-system, you just have to explain to us how this is the case. Only by doing this we can advance the discussion in a meaningful way. This is not just a matter of opinion or whishful thinking of a minority of elitists. This curse is real, and it matters for fans of proper, decent cRPGs.
 
Last edited:

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