Community Larian Studios RPG Survey - The Results

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Tags: Larian Studios

Some time ago the denizens of fair Codexia partook in Larian Studio's RPG survey. Well, the results are now public.

​

You can see the entire statistics here.

Taking a look at these graphs I can't help but notice that the bigots at Larian embezzled the newly invented and, by the tolerant community here on RPG Codex, promptly promoted gender "attack helicopter".
This kind of fascist misgenderism really has no place in 2017. Furthermore they also left out the RPG Codex as its own category in the "Where do you get your news from" section, a pity, because we'd probably emerged first place there.
Other than that it seems that isometric, turn-based storyfaggotry won - if I'm interpreting the graphs correctly.

Thanks to jerf again.

 

[Darth Roxor]

Why is there "co-op" twice on "How much do you value these features in an RPG?"

 

[Bumvelcrow]

Rather alarming seeing the storyfag versus tactical combat bars. Also it seems that Larian's attempt to bet the farm on co-op is trying to serve a non-existent market. Hopefully they'll pay some attention to this.

 

[Bumvelcrow]

Why is there "co-op" twice on "How much do you value these features in an RPG?"

I assumed it was LAN and internet co-op. I seem to remember something like that in the survey, but could easily just be confused.

 

[Daedalos]

LeL.

Must be weird for Larian reading that survey.

Storyfags are their main audience, yet Larian can't into fucking story at all. D:OS 1 was a combat game with some goofy nonsensical story sprinkled on top along with silly mediocre writing.

Doesn't bode well for D:OS 2 unless they REALLY up the antee in terms of story and writing.

We'll see, though.

 

[SwiftCrack]

Crafting being on the lower end is good. I bet the higher coop is online and the lower is local.

Apparently it's PVP for one and COOP for the other.

 

[Daedalos]

Why is there "co-op" twice on "How much do you value these features in an RPG?"

Larian clarified on twitter, that it was an error. IT's supposed to be CO-OP and PVP, and not twice CO-OP. Not sure which is which, though.

https://twitter.com/larianstudios/s...io/iframe/twitter.min.html#897569486232006656

 

[Mastermind]

disgusting storyfags

 

[Scroo]

Story more important than tactical combat / gameplay

 

[CRD]

Rather alarming seeing the storyfag versus tactical combat bars. Also it seems that Larian's attempt to bet the farm on co-op is trying to serve a non-existent market. Hopefully they'll pay some attention to this.

Im more inclined to think that 90% of the people who did the survey are backers from PC, and if you do the same for console users, co-op would be 90% "essential feature" votes. And D2 is going to have a console release, so it makes a lot of sense investing in that.

Also the multiplayer/coop of D2, looks like is not going to be a classic one "play with your friend going everywhere together!", they said we can play 4 and move around the world without your mates doing a lot of different things and that we can even go against them, betray or having different objectives, so could be fun. I really want to see how it pays off

Oh yes, also, modding + coop = multiplayer for years

 

[daveyd]

I think a great deal of CRPG player wants both a decent story (at least something less cliche and without retarded silliness like talking inanimate objects) AND a decent tactical combat system. If Larian was a tiny two person indie studio they'd probably have to choose which one to focus on. But they have sufficient funding and resources that they should be able to do both reasonably well. And if something should be cut from their budget, it's VA. I'd rather have well written dialogue that I have to read than boring prose delivered in a grand British accent (or be subjected to Madora's shitty American Southern accent for some fucking reason).

And judging by what I've played of D:OS (I never finished it), Larian has a lot of room to improve in both story and combat. The combat system has lots of options to be sure, but something about it made nearly every damn encounter feel the same. A bunch of trash encounters with elemental goo. Perhaps it was too much of a good thing, IDK. Turn-based tactical combat is my mode of choice but D:OS combat bored me to tears after awhile, and that combined with their terrible random loot system and silly (but not funny) story has kept me from ever being tempted to give it another shot. I didn't back D:OS2 and I'd love to hear that they improved on all lacking aspects of D:OS, but I think the best we can hope for is a slightly less shitty story, which isn't really enough for me.

 

[Doxy]

Fuck the story. I want more challenge in rpgs.

 

[Grunker]

People lie to themselves about their own preferences. As if people play Div OS for the story

 

[Falksi]

Encouraging results, especially regards the story-driven elements.

Still think their game selection on there is poor though, esp Action-RPGs.

 

[SwiftCrack]

Story voters are Facebook gamers who read somewhere that 'having a deep story is hardcore gaming' and want to feel in-crowd.

'im such a nerd teehee'

 

[Darth Roxor]

People lie to themselves about their own preferences. As if people play Div OS for the story

Well, to be sort of fair, the question was "How much do you value these features in an RPG?", not "in a Larian game".

 

[Drowed]

I think the Codex members sometimes forget that the particular world view that exists around here isn't the same in the "outside world."

For example, I imagine that a turn-based game with a difficulty considered appropriate for the members here would be essentially unplayable for most people. Way too hard for them. The same goes when we talk about story. By the standards here, the story of Larian's games is its weak point, which deserves no consideration. But for the rest of the players? Who thinks that games like Dragon Age Inquisition look like a perfect example of deep and engaging plot? Original Sin may very well be regarded as a game with good history for these standards, especially for those who like the kind of humor presented by Larian (which is somewhat hit'n'miss).

It's not that they lie to themselves, but simply that their level of demand (and preferences) are completely different.

 

[SophosTheWise]

Story voters are Facebook gamers who read somewhere that 'having a deep story is hardcore gaming' and want to feel in-crowd.

'im such a nerd teehee'

tactical combat voters are codex neckbeards who read there that having "deep combat is hardcore gaming" and want to feel special.

'im so hardkore teehee'

 

[Falksi]

I think the Codex members sometimes forget that the particular world view that exists around here isn't the same in the "outside world."

For example, I imagine that a turn-based game with a difficulty considered appropriate for the members here would be essentially unplayable for most people. Way too hard for them. The same goes when we talk about story. By the standards here, the story of Larian's games is its weak point, which deserves no consideration. But for the rest of the players? Who thinks that games like Dragon Age Inquisition look like a perfect example of deep and engaging plot? Original Sin may very well be regarded as a game with good history for these standards, especially for those who like the kind of humor presented by Larian (which is somewhat hit'n'miss).

It's not that they lie to themselves, but simply that their level of demand (and preferences) are completely different.

But the survey still highlights what people want. The depth/difficulty of that can be controlled, by both devs & users, to suit all.

 

[Keppo]

People lie to themselves about their own preferences. As if people play Div OS for the story

Well, to be sort of fair, the question was "How much do you value these features in an RPG?", not "in a Larian game".

Yea, But Larian is combat focused company, there is definitely more than average amount of people that play Larian games because they prefer tactical combat in RPGs than any other elements. If this surver was made by company less focused on "tactical combat" and more on "story" like Obsidian for example then story would have even more votes, and tactical combat even less than in Larian survey.


People love story in every medium. Games, books, movies. But what makes story is not only "pure storyline" but also other elements, great written characters, world building, atmosphere, sound(ambience and soundtrack) and this has impact on survey like this i think.


Buh, even top games in RPG Codex are atmosphere/story games.

 

[Grunker]

People lie to themselves about their own preferences. As if people play Div OS for the story

Well, to be sort of fair, the question was "How much do you value these features in an RPG?", not "in a Larian game".

I see what you mean, but Div OS was chosen because it was a good example, not because it applies only to it. I genuinely think that many people overestimate the value they place on story in actuality. The non-gameplay genre would be massively more popular if people actually played games for the story to the extent they claim to.

I suppose one of the reasons people seem to get so hung up on it is that media with truely great storytelling leave a pretty lasting impression

 

[Ranarama]

People who care about tactical combat and don't care for story can be satisfied with the 1000th replay of their favourite title.

Whereas Storyfags and even people who like tactical combat yet insist that it be in service to some sort of plot require something new once in a while.

 

[Morality Games]

People lie to themselves about their own preferences. As if people play Div OS for the story

If anything it is the tactical people who are lying.

RPG games with good stories (Planescape, Betrayal at Krondor, MotB, Dragonfall, Expeditions, etc) tend to resonate more than any other kind of game with RPG players, but years can pass without one getting released. That leaves story-driven RPGs with bad stories or tactical, atmospheric RPGs.

Even if games with good stories resonate more with us, most people would rather play a low-narrative, low writing RPG with good tactics and game play than a story-driven RPG with a bad story, producing the illusion of preference for tactical games.

 

[Serus]

People who care about tactical combat and don't care for story can be satisfied with the 1000th replay of their favourite title.

Whereas Storyfags and even people who like tactical combat yet insist that it be in service to some sort of plot require something new once in a while.

That's nonsense. You could spin it as easily the other way around. There are people who claim to have played games like P:T several times. On the other hand once you know all the mechanics, all the enemies and all the tricks (after a few playthroughs at most) any tactical challenge is gone so you need a new game. See, that was easy.

 

[Malpercio]

Meh, I feel like people give DOS' story too much shit. I mean, it's not great, but most quests are very good for example, NPC have good interactions, etc