CDPR Defends Difficulty

Originally Posted by TheSisko
Reading this thread I get the impression that most people (or an imagined "mainstream" that must be catered to) will quit and delete a game which features any sort of tactics or strategy - since most of them apparently can't stand to die more than once or twice in a game.

The mainsteam perhaps, but I really don't think the majority of Watch members fall into that category.

Originally Posted by JDR13
The mainsteam perhaps, but I really don't think the majority of Watch members fall into that category.

Well, I guess what I find more irritating is people who say "They made a mistake by not catering to the mainstream" - as if there's not even enough potential gamers left to buy a game that presents any form of challenge. And Witcher 2 is already a very simple game with simple mechanics.

I'd bring up the argument that far more complex and difficult RPG's have sold far more than Witcher 2 in the past, but I know what the response will be: "That was a different era, modern gamers bla bla… this is the best we can get etc."

No wonder we don't get any complex RPG's if their fans have become apologists who buy anything anyway, and even defend the lack of depth.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
Well, I guess what I find more irritating is people who say "They made a mistake by not catering to the mainstream" - as if there's not even enough potential gamers left to buy a game that presents any form of challenge. And Witcher 2 is already a very simple game with simple mechanics.

I agree with you 100% there. Unfortunately, I think we might be in the minority with that opinion.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
I'd bring up the argument that far more complex and difficult RPG's have sold far more than Witcher 2 in the past, but I know what the response will be: "That was a different era, modern gamers bla bla… this is the best we can get etc."

No wonder we don't get any complex RPG's if their fans have become apologists who buy anything anyway, and even defend the lack of depth.

What action-RPGs that were far more difficult than The Witcher 2 sold far more? I'd be curious to see that list.

As far as fans being apologists who defend lack of depth, where are you seeing that? I don't visit many other fourms, but I certainly don't see many poeple who fit that description here.

Originally Posted by JDR13
What action-RPGs that were far more difficult than The Witcher 2 sold far more? I'd be curious to see that list.

Perhaps not "far more difficult", but Diablo 2 and Morrowind certainly have a lot more depth and complexity.

As far as fans being apologists who defend lack of depth, where are you seeing that? I don't visit many other fourms, but I certainly don't see many poeple who fit that description here.

I see it several times in this thread.

I agree with you 100% there. Unfortunately, I think we might be in the minority with that opinion.

I'm pretty sure the minority with that opinion can support a game financially. But certainly the perception is that they can't and therefore we should make do with lesser games.

I don't think harder and more complex games sold more copies in the past. However, I do think that there was a time when the percentage of the audience that bought these games, was much higher than it is today.

Perhaps not "far more difficult", but Diablo 2 and Morrowind certainly have a lot more depth and complexity.

Ehm, what?

Diablo 2, to some degree, can be argued to be complex in a certain way.

But if we're talking about combat mechanics - then Morrowind is about as shallow as they come. It's literally point and click with zero tactical/strategic consideration.

The Witcher 2 is of godlike complexity in comparison.

Diablo 2 and Morrowind are both *completely* different styles of games compared to TW2. I thought you were going to offer a comparison of something similar. Morrowind isn't even an action-RPG, at least not to most people.


@DArtagnan- How dare you reply before me.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
I don't think harder and more complex games sold more copies in the past.

You don't think Morrowind and Baldur's Gate sold more than Witcher 2?

However, I do think that there was a time when the percentage of the audience that bought these games, was much higher than it is today.

Not really. The large majority of gamers around 2000 were buying titles like "Mario Kart" and "The Sims". The difference was that there were plenty other developers who didn't try their best to turn their games into copies of those games. Unlike today, were it seems developers of niche games must all catch that "CoD"-audience.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Ehm, what?
The Witcher 2 is of godlike complexity in comparison.

You really believe that Witcher 2, as a game, has more depth than Morrowind?

Originally Posted by TheSisko
You really believe that Witcher 2, as a game, has more depth than Morrowind?

I certainly do, by quite a large margin (and I love both games). And Diablo 2 "complex?" Surely you jest!

Originally Posted by TheSisko
You really believe that Witcher 2, as a game, has more depth than Morrowind?

Where did he say that? It looks to me like he was only comparing the combat mechanics, and TW2 definitely had far more depth in that category.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
You don't think Morrowind and Baldur's Gate sold more than Witcher 2?

We'll know when The Witcher 2 releases on consoles. It wouldn't be a fair comparison otherwise. But Morrowind is neither more complex, nor harder than TW2 - to my mind.

Baldur's Gate? I'm not sure of the numbers. You could be right, but it would represent the exception.

Not really. The large majority of gamers around 2000 were buying titles like "Mario Kart" and "The Sims". The difference was that there were plenty other developers who didn't try their best to turn their games into copies of those games. Unlike today, were it seems developers of niche games must all catch that "CoD"-audience.

I'm not talking about the majority as such - just the percentage, and I guess I'm a little further back in the past than you are. Probably around the mid-nineties, when I think the genre stopped evolving - and in many cases started devolving.

I don't think you could make a "Baldur's Gate" type game today, and expect a similarly large percentage of RPG fans to buy it.

Games like Oblivion and the upcoming Skyrim win - because they're so accessible and shallow in terms of mechanics.

So, to use some fished-out-of-the-blue numbers for demonstration, I think a good ~90% of RPG fans will buy Skyrim today, but only around 30-40% would buy a game with Baldur's Gate levels of complexity and accessibility. Something like Age of Decadence will demonstrate once it's released.

In 1998 - I'm pretty sure 80-90% of RPG fans bought Baldur's Gate.

OK, I'm convinced. The Witcher 2 is a modern "AAA" cinematic RPG, and as such it's normal with only 5 spells throughout the game and a character system that barely affects the gameplay.

If it had any more depth, it would flop commercially as it already lacks an in-depth tutorial explaining difficult-to-grasp concept, such as having to block and roll to avoid hits, which makes the game too difficult for many gamers who delete the game after dying several times on some fights.

Better?

Originally Posted by TheSisko
You really believe that Witcher 2, as a game, has more depth than Morrowind?

You need to be a little consistent. You started with "far more difficult and complex".

Then you said "depth and complexity".

Now you focus on depth exclusively.

I need to know EXACTLY what you're asking me here.

Depth is not quite clear unless defined. Depth in terms of scope? Then Morrowind wins.

Depth in terms of gameplay mechanics? Witcher 2 wins.

Depth can be many things, really.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
So, to use some fished-out-of-the-blue numbers for demonstration, I think a good ~90% of RPG fans will buy Skyrim today, but only around 30-40% would buy a game with Baldur's Gate levels of complexity and accessibility. Something like Age of Decadence will demonstrate once it's released.

In 1998 - I'm pretty sure 80-90% of RPG fans bought Baldur's Gate.

And those percentages are useful how? Just because both labels themselves RPG's doesn't mean they are the same types of games.

Skyrim is an first-person open-world action-adventure. Baldur's Gate is a party-based tactical RPG. In 1997, ~90% of gamers bought "Mario Kart" and maybe around 1% bought Fallout, yet it was profitable enough to warrant a sequel.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
OK, I'm convinced. The Witcher 2 is a modern "AAA" cinematic RPG, and as such it's normal with only 5 spells throughout the game and a character system that barely affects the gameplay.

Ehm, what? Did you even play the game?

Pretty much every single power in the separate trees has a SIGNIFICANT affect on the gameplay. It's one of the best implementations of powers I've seen, precisely because your choices matter so much.

The amount of spells is entirely consistent with the character of the books and the previous games. They can also be modified and enhanced.

Geralt is not a mage.

If it had any more depth, it would flop commercially as it already lacks an in-depth tutorial explaining difficult-to-grasp concept, such as having to block and roll to avoid hits, which makes the game too difficult for many gamers who delete the game after dying several times on some fights.

Better?

If you're trying to say that more complexity means fewer copies sold - then we agree.

However, if you want me to call The Witcher 2 shallow or "typically mainstream" - then you'd have better luck getting Bioware to understand the value of avoiding the cliché or getting Bethesda to understand gameplay mechanics.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
If you're trying to say that more complexity means fewer copies sold - then we agree.

I hope you mean "potentially fewer" copies sold, otherwise everyone would be millionaires making "Angry Bird"-clones and companies like Paradox wouldn't exist.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
And those percentages are useful how? Just because both labels themselves RPG's doesn't mean they are the same types of games.

Skyrim is an first-person open-world action-adventure. Baldur's Gate is a party-based tactical RPG. In 1997, ~90% of gamers bought "Mario Kart" and maybe around 1% bought Fallout, yet it was profitable enough to warrant a sequel.

They're useful for demonstration purposes, as I pointed out.

No, I don't think 1% of RPG fans bought Fallout.

It's not rocket science, really.

Today we have less enthusiast gamers - PERCENTAGE-WISE - then we did in the mid-nineties.

Originally Posted by TheSisko
I hope you mean "potentially fewer" copies sold, otherwise everyone would be millionaires making "Angry Bird"-clones and companies like Paradox wouldn't exist.

That doesn't even make sense. Paradox can exist without making huge hits, and Angry Birds-clones are being made by the truck-load as we speak, precisely because people believe complexity is a killer.

In any case, it's pretty obvious what I meant without becoming obsessively pedantic about it.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan
Today we have less enthusiast gamers - PERCENTAGE-WISE - then we did in the mid-nineties.

I don't agree. In 1997, the best selling console games sold around 10 million copies while niche PC games typically sold around 100k-500k copies. In 2011, the best selling console games sell around 20 million copies while niche PC games typically sell 0.5-1 million copies.

The key difference between the eras is that a lot of former niche developers are "mainstreaming" their games today in an attempt to sell more, while in the 90's the two groups were more separated.