StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2005-03-22 03:46am**

Assassin X wrote:Ok two part topic!

Part 1- Are manuals useless?:
I think they are. Most people say they use they can see what buttons they need to use. Well you can see that in the game options! Ive never used a game manual, except for SW:Galaxies and thats it. Other then that i never use them unless i get bored and look at there cool pictures.

FUCK NO. While you may not need manuals in games like Quake, Age of Empires, or Super Mario Bros, there are cases when manuals are more than something to read while sprawling on the couch:

- Flight sims. Try playing Flanker 2.0 or Total Air War only with keyboard reference chart and you know what I mean.

- Strategy. Unless the game mechanics are very watered down like those in RTS, this is another example of games where you need to study the manual before playing the game. An example is Microprose's Master of Magic or X-Com: UFO Defense where you need to read the manual in order to play the game.

Yes, it requires some effort, but once you learn how to play it, it would be a rewarding gaming experience. IMO, much rewarding than just the same repetitive "point-and-click" in what so-called "strategy" today.

- Adventure. I'm talking about a relatively extinct genre today, thanks to enldess flooding of generic "solve-the-puzzle-and-watch-the-FMV" during mid 90's *cough*Myst*cough*cough*.

Adventure games like King's Quest or The Secret of Monkey Island are about figuring out what to do to advance through the plot, and the manual give you the background story to make your life easier (unlike solving the puzzles in Myst or the like, where the puzzles have nothing to do with the plot. In fact, is there any plot at all?).

- RPG. Same with above, plus you need some clue on what are those statistics all about. Mind you, I'm NOT talking about the likes of Diablo or some Japanime console "RPG".

Even in genres when manuals are not needed, a good manual still enhances the gaming experience greatly. Take a look at StarCraft, for example. One of the reasons why I would bother myself playing RTS is the storyline, and SC manual really enhance my gaming experience, making me believe I'm really dealing with X'el Naga creations instead just another sprites.

WarCraft III is also another good example of how excellent manual enhances the gaming experience. And of course, nothing beats The Farlander Papers. Now, if only someone here has The Stele Chronicles for sale....

And of course, I love sprawling on the couch while reading some good game manual.

Assassin X wrote:Part 2- Reason games are expensive!:
A few years ago i broke down how much games cost but turns out PC Gamer did the same thing.

Our games would be dirt cheap if it wast for all the extra money being spent on them.

Its $5 for the the fancy manual, $4 for the Box, $2 for the CD case(opposed to 25cents for a plastic sleeve), $3 for the shelve space at the store(we pay for shelve space ) ...etc

Call me an old geezer but in my era, games are cheaper than today, despite the nice, (and sometimes) beautifully illustrated manuals. Unlike today where a big, double-walled box containing nothing but a jewel case costs you more than fifty bucks.

Assassin X wrote:Its amazing, we pay for lots of things like the advertising, the games finishing party(sometimes) and a bunch of useless crap there had to be about 34 items.

More and more production cost today flows toward advertising and distribution, the "production values" *cough*cough*, and probably to cover the loss of unsold games. During my era, rare I saw full-color, two pages advertisement trying to sell a crappy game.

Assassin X wrote:I dont mind paying the guys obviously. But i can go without a box and manual! Give me a cheap plastic sleeve and thats all i need....err and the CD of course!

Because most games today are very watered down to the point you can just jump in and do the same shooting (or point-and-clicking) as you did with the last title you've played last week.

Thanks to some sharkschool graduates in Armani suits, the PC game business had turned to something more like fastfood market, where products once known as labours of love had mutated into nothing more than commodities not unlike boys band and McDonald's burger.

Not to mention, with what so-called "games" today, PC had changed from a very versatile gaming tool it should be, to be nothing more than a very expensive console. (M$ Word doesn't count coz I'm talking in the context of gaming)

But hey, if you don't mind taking some break from whatever FPS/RTS clone you're playing now, probably you can browse eBay for the likes of System Shock or Master of Orion, spend some time to study the manual, and immerse yourself in a very deep and addicting gaming experience unparalleled by anything they have on the shelves today.

Posted: **2005-03-22 05:54am**

well my veiw is from Fallout 2

what, books are obsolete?
nah, I'd rather read a book then have some computer teach me how to use it.

Posted: **2005-03-22 10:03am**

The point is best made with RPG's. Imagine playing Arcanum without a manual, and there is no bloody way I want to check a PDF file for that.

Posted: **2005-03-22 10:57am**

also the fallout manuals were chok full of useful info, I'm on my third set of jewelcase fallout disks, (1&2) in one package due to various parties, and wear and tear, we still have the original manuals...

very bad when the 12 year old is using the fallout manual for it's conversion tables to do his homework.....

Posted: **2005-03-22 02:15pm**

Obviously games comes with more then they used to. Games are more popular then they use to be which leads to other things...see my "Poor sportsmanship" topic

Its also obvious games that are MMO or RPG or really big are going to need a manual. I mean everyone knows that. But generally the other games dont.

Now i will say im diffrent when it comes to strategy games. I play the games then usually read the manuals some weeks later. All in all eventually ill read them but usually ill only read the story and informational stuff except like controls and useless carp like "What we recommend"...etc.

Well obviously people feel very diffrently on this. I guess thats what EBAY and Electonics Boutique are for. I get my games cheaper you pay more....were all happy!

j/k

Posted: **2005-03-22 05:51pm**

Arcanums manual was an EXCELLENT example of how to do a great manual - the "encyclopedia" style writing, the way it perfectly blended with the game world, and had a MASSIVE depth of information...

Posted: **2005-03-22 06:01pm**

Exactly, now imagine trying to play the game without the manual. It was both fun to read but and informative. It wasn't just fluff text.

Posted: **2005-03-22 06:50pm**

Assassin X wrote: Well obviously people feel very diffrently on this. I guess thats what EBAY and Electonics Boutique are for. I get my games cheaper you pay more....were all happy! :D j/k :lol:

Actually, fucker, we're not - because WE STILL DON'T GET OUR FUCKING MANUALS!

I think its safe to say you've been well and truly shouted down on this front.

And I can also say that the cost of producing/printing a 100 page glossy papered/black and white manual is NEGLIGIBLE when put along side the cost of developing the game. And I wouldn't have such a complaint if we weren't paying FULL FUCKING PRICES for games that SHOULD have manuals but DON'T. I would be happy if they produced 2 versions for sale - 1 in a jewel case, no cover art, on disc manual and nothing but the discs )and have them on a crappy looking non-art CD) and sold it for the whole $5 less a version that would be realisitically justified and another version with a real box, printed manual and nice game.

For an example of a BEAUTIFUL game box/CD/manual combination, Hidden and Dangerous 2 is the epitome of PC game packaging.

Posted: **2005-03-22 07:10pm**

Assassin X wrote:Obviously games comes with more then they used to. Games are more popular then they use to be which leads to other things...see my "Poor sportsmanship" topic

Its also obvious games that are MMO or RPG or really big are going to need a manual. I mean everyone knows that. But generally the other games dont.

"Generally the other games don't"? I guess your definition of "games" is very limited to Counter-Strike clones and Age Of Empires clones, is that right, kid?

Now try playing Jane's F-15 with no manual, fucktard.

Assassin X wrote:Now i will say im diffrent when it comes to strategy games. I play the games then usually read the manuals some weeks later. All in all eventually ill read them but usually ill only read the story and informational stuff except like controls and useless carp like "What we recommend"...etc.

Suspicion confirmed. It's obvious you've never played Civilization.

Assassin X wrote:Well obviously people feel very diffrently on this. I guess thats what EBAY and Electonics Boutique are for. I get my games cheaper you pay more....were all happy! j/k

No shit, Sherlock. Games in eBay are usually cheaper because they're USED games. So your point is....?

Posted: **2005-03-22 07:22pm**

remember when flight sims used to come with a keyboard overlay, a three inch manual, and still needed a joystick

I would play weapon's officer to my brother's pilot....

Posted: **2005-03-22 07:34pm**

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote: - Strategy. Unless the game mechanics are very watered down like those in RTS, this is another example of games where you need to study the manual before playing the game. An example is Microprose's Master of Magic or X-Com: UFO Defense where you need to read the manual in order to play the game.

"Generally the other games don't"? I guess your definition of "games" is very limited to Counter-Strike clones and Age Of Empires clones, is that right, kid?

Now try playing Jane's F-15 with no manual, fucktard.

Hah, watered down game mechanics in RTS games like AoE? To play and be competitive in RTS games like Age of Empires, it requires a very deep knowledge of the game, cost effectiveness, economy managment, unit creation time, and tons of strats and counter strats.

Of course, this you don't really get from the manual, (except for maybe unit costs and time it takes to create but that isn't really accurate because they change over the patches) most of this information you get from personal experience, and discussion with other players. Also strategy from the manual wouldn't be that good since the average mutliplayer player is better than the very people that made the game, let a lone the top players.

Posted: **2005-03-22 07:54pm**

The Yosemite Bear wrote:remember when flight sims used to come with a keyboard overlay, a three inch manual, and still needed a joystick
I would play weapon's officer to my brother's pilot....

Gunship. There's a reason the Apache is a two-seater...
I may suck as a pilot but I'm one mean CPG

Posted: **2005-03-22 08:13pm**

Me too

yes, gunship, F-14, X-wing, and TIE are sibling favorites. My brother still calls me "Goose" or "R2"

Posted: **2005-03-22 10:07pm**

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:And of course, I love sprawling on the couch while reading some good game manual.

It's also something you can do while someone else is on the computer (probably also playing the new game), or when it's inconvenient to use the computer. And is so much easier on the eyes.

Then, when you get your chance to play the game, you can do amazing things the first player who refused to read the manual didn't know about. (Like redirect power to your weapons in X-Wing so that they actuall recharge...

)

Posted: **2005-03-22 10:46pm**

You guys are really stupid.

I know flight simulators and strategies would require manuals. Your ripping me apart on every thing i dont mention. Its impossible to mention every little type of game that would need one so stop making a post about everyone i forget to mention. DOnt forget people might like a manual for something that others might not want one for.

My points is for some games manuals are useless and for others they are not. Theres no need to flame me just because you disagee and think EVERY game needs a manual. If you cant handle my opionion then i dont know what else to say.

As for game prices. I never said i dont think the makers shouldnt get paid. I just think games would be alot cheapers if we didnt have the boxes, cd cases, manuals(optional with a game) and cut out some of the other things that the article mentioned. I dont know how anyone can argue against it because then your arguing FOR expensive games.

And as for the EBAY thing. I have gotten used games before but lstey ig et brand new games for about 3/4 the price and theres nothing wrong with the except the come with a Box and a manual sometimes if i ask(gets the price down!).

Posted: **2005-03-22 11:30pm**

Assassin X wrote:You guys are really stupid.

We're stupid? We're not the ones that started a thread on how manuals are useless!

I know flight simulators and strategies would require manuals. Your ripping me apart on every thing i dont mention. Its impossible to mention every little type of game that would need one so stop making a post about everyone i forget to mention. DOnt forget people might like a manual for something that others might not want one for.

How the hell else are we supposed to defend against your charge that manuals are useless?

I mean come on. You say manuals are useless for for most games (or was that some? Or all? You've seemed to change your mind since then). We defend by stating all the areas where manuals are definately not useless. Now you get pissed because you apparently already "know" about those situations, and just forgot to mention them.

If you don't like the responses, you shouldn't have made the topic in the first place.

My points is for some games manuals are useless and for others they are not. Theres no need to flame me just because you disagee and think EVERY game needs a manual. If you cant handle my opionion then i dont know what else to say.

You're right. Not every game needs a manual. Only the good ones do.

As for game prices. I never said i dont think the makers shouldnt get paid. I just think games would be alot cheapers if we didnt have the boxes, cd cases, manuals(optional with a game)

That would save about a whole 10 dollars.

and cut out some of the other things that the article mentioned. I dont know how anyone can argue against it because then your arguing FOR expensive games.

And just what else did this article mention? You've just said something about a "finishing party". That would raise the cost of a game by maybe a whole 15 cents. If that.

And did you happen to notice the post in this thread where Ace Pace said that the article was apparently a joke article in the first place?

Just give up already.

[edit] Fixed up a quote I forgot to respond to.
[edit 2.0] This is why I don't post often.

Posted: **2005-03-22 11:40pm**

ArmorPierce wrote:Hah, watered down game mechanics in RTS games like AoE? To play and be competitive in RTS games like Age of Empires, it requires a very deep knowledge of the game, cost effectiveness, economy managment, unit creation time, and tons of strats and counter strats.

Of course, this you don't really get from the manual, (except for maybe unit costs and time it takes to create but that isn't really accurate because they change over the patches) most of this information you get from personal experience, and discussion with other players. Also strategy from the manual wouldn't be that good since the average mutliplayer player is better than the very people that made the game, let a lone the top players.

RTS are easy to learn (to the point that you don't really need a manual), but some can be pretty hard to master. That's why in playing RTS, experience is more important than manual.

Posted: **2005-03-23 01:06am**

Ass X wrote:You guys are really stupid.

Bold statement, kid. You better back it up.

Ass X wrote:I know flight simulators and strategies would require manuals. Your ripping me apart on every thing i dont mention. Its impossible to mention every little type of game that would need one so stop making a post about everyone i forget to mention. DOnt forget people might like a manual for something that others might not want one for.

My points is for some games manuals are useless and for others they are not.

No. Those are MY points, you FUCKING LIAR.

KAN wrote: FUCK NO. While you may not need manuals in games like Quake, Age of Empires, or Super Mario Bros, there are cases when manuals are more than something to read while sprawling on the couch:

- Flight sims. Try playing Flanker 2.0 or Total Air War only with keyboard reference chart and you know what I mean.

- Strategy. Unless the game mechanics are very watered down like those in RTS, this is another example of games where you need.... <snip>

In fact, THESE are your points:

Ass X wrote: Ok two part topic!

Part 1- Are manuals useless?:
I think they are. Most people say they use they can see what buttons they need to use.

Ass X wrote:Its also obvious games that are MMO or RPG or really big are going to need a manual. I mean everyone knows that. But generally the other games dont.

So flightsims don't need manuals.... Turn-based strategy doesn't need them either... right?

Ass X wrote:Theres no need to flame me just because you disagee and think EVERY game needs a manual. If you cant handle my opionion then i dont know what else to say.

Please point WHERE did we say EVERY game needs a manual, you lying fucktard.

Ass X wrote:As for game prices. I never said i dont think the makers shouldnt get paid. I just think games would be alot cheapers if we didnt have the boxes, cd cases, manuals(optional with a game) and cut out some of the other things that the article mentioned. I dont know how anyone can argue against it because then your arguing FOR expensive games.

FIRST: where we ever said the makers should NOT get paid?

SECOND: who argued FOR expensive games?

So... instead of reading your Age of Liars game documentations, you've decided it would be better to jump right into "Instant Action" and rolling up the game manual for anal masturbation?

No wonder. You couldn't even make good lies!

Ass X wrote:And as for the EBAY thing. I have gotten used games before but lstey ig et brand new games for about 3/4 the price and theres nothing wrong with the except the come with a Box and a manual sometimes if i ask(gets the price down!).

So HOW does this one support your claim that "games are expensive BECAUSE of their manuals"?

Posted: **2005-03-23 01:15am**

yeah, I remember mikes idiot friend who asked what kind of computer games I play....

Mostly Stratagy

oh you mean like command and conquere or empire earth?

no, I mean Civ II, Master of Orion, or Hearts of Iron....

Posted: **2005-03-23 01:16am**

The Yosemite Bear wrote:yeah, I remember mikes idiot friend who asked what kind of computer games I play....

Mostly Stratagy

oh you mean like command and conquere or empire earth?

no, I mean Civ II, Master of Orion, or Hearts of Iron....

Posted: **2005-03-23 03:05am**

Assain, if you could give me the article's apporpiate issue, I can probebly find it and post the entire article, so get cracking.

Also, AoE clones KAN? thats really low, AoE is NOT a simple hotkey game, its a fucking masterpeice of RTS work.

Sometimes your nostalgia turns into sheer 'racisim' against newer games, and it dosn't cross your mind they might actully be better.

Posted: **2005-03-23 03:58am**

The excellent manual and goodies are the reason why I got the Starcraft Battle Chest in the first place. So yes, a good manual with lots of neat fluff and such make the extra cost worth it my opinion (but I HATE having to pony up the cash...).

Posted: **2005-03-23 05:38am**

Ace Pace wrote:Assain, if you could give me the article's apporpiate issue, I can probebly find it and post the entire article, so get cracking.

Also, AoE clones KAN? thats really low, AoE is NOT a simple hotkey game, its a fucking masterpeice of RTS work.

It probably is. The same couldn't be said about its clones, though. I actually love Quake and revelling myself in trying those new mods and conversions, but when everything else in the stores are nothing more than "Quake-clones", I just couldn't help but wince.

Ace Pace wrote:Sometimes your nostalgia turns into sheer 'racisim' against newer games, and it dosn't cross your mind they might actully be better.

Note I've been talking in the context of the necessity of manuals. It's true that I didn't really need to read the manual to finish StarCraft, and, like ArmorPierce said, sheer experience and discussions with other players has more important role in playing RTS than a manual. It's because of the nature of such games itself where the game mechanics are so simplified so a manual is not needed to play the game.

However, claiming a manual is unnecessary simply based on certain genres is over-generalizing and stupid, as manual is still needed for genres like flightsim or turn-based strategy. Assasin X just showed his ignorance that such games exist, and used "his kind of games" to extrapolate the unecessity of manual to all other games.

But even in games where manual is not a necessity to play, manual still does nice things like provide us with background stories and such, which in turn enhances our gaming experience.

I can still win WarCraft III campaign without knowing a shit about who Arthas is, or the historical background of the Burning Legion, but it's easier to immerse myself in the game universe if read the manual.

Oh, by the way I DO have sheer 'racism'

against newer games, but that's another thing....

Posted: **2005-03-23 05:59am**

KAN, the problem is when does a game stop being a 'clone' and be a good game in its own right.

Empire Earth is a 'clone' of AoE, made by former AoE team members, but no one would argue its a 'clone', because of its scope, game mechanics are the same, because those mechanics WORK, their sucessful for a reason.

That racisim makes alot of people overlook some games that appear to be clones, but are groundbreaking, such as Ground Control, that game got SHIT sales, not because it was new and the 'jock' crowd didn't pick it up, but because people looked at it and though 'RTS clone Number 5987', when it was 'Tactical Strategy Game 1'.

Posted: **2005-03-23 07:21am**

Ace, I would blame such things to the today's trend in the gaming industry to imitating instead of innovating (unlike in my days of innovative and exciting gameplay like Sid Meier's Pirates!, Sword of the Samurai, or Fragile Allegiance). Particularly after the success of Doom and Command & Conquer which brings computer games closer to the average market.

This trend has been practically flooding the shelves with clones, making us harder to tell the difference between "good clones" and "bad clones". So I wouldn't be surprised seeing "good clones" like Empire Earth or Ground Control making poor sales.

When imitating over existing concepts, you'll always face the problem of lack of recognicition, despite whether you're actually making "good clones" or "bad clones" one.

For example, StarCraft is merely a "good clone". Granted it has solid gameplay, intriguing storyline, excellent presentation, and in overall is a good game. But at the end, it's just another RTS where you basically do the same "point-and-clicking" like you did with Command & Conquer. Frankly, if StarCraft was published by some unknown game publisher instead of relying on the strong brand of Blizzard, would it achieve such successfull sales?

On the other hand, the games you've mentioned (Ground Control and Empire Earth) didn't enjoy strong brand recognition (and probably hype) as StarCraft did, then suffered poor sales despite the fact they're also "good clones".

But even when you're truly innovating, it's still hard for the gamers to tell the difference and pick your game among the crowds, thanks to enldess flooding of generic games in the market today An example is Hostile Waters: Antaeus Rising which combines game mechanics of both FPS and RTS, resulting something greater than the sum of its parts. However, it still "engulfed" by the generic flood on the shelves.

But what mostly amazes me, while there are excellent games which were also successfull in the market, like Deus Ex or EF 2000, or maybe Origin's Privateer for older era (the first one, not Privateer 2), game publishers today simply choose to ignore such fact and continue to spewing out generic clones.

Yes, despite the fact that innovative games CAN succeed in the market, big-time publishers find it more convenience to follow the "generic path", making computer games nothing more than McDonald's burgers, and practically turning the PC into a very expensive console. Do they completely ignore that the original Railroad Tycoon is not only an excellent game, but was also successfull in terms of sales?

Probably because "generic", console-style games is "cheaper" to produce? Because in producing clones they can minimize their dependency to big talents like Sid Meier, Andy Hollis, or Chris Crawford?

Or because it's an unhealhty business climate now where marketing people start dictating what type of games should be made, instead of figuring out how to actually market a good game?

Or both?

Ah, but we're supposed to discuss about the game manuals in this thread. If we're to continue this, then it should be in another thread, I guess.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Reasons games are expensive! PLus are manuals useless?

Re: Reasons games are expensive! PLus are manuals useless?

Re: Reasons games are expensive! PLus are manuals useless?

Re: Reasons games are expensive! PLus are manuals useless?

Re: Reasons games are expensive! PLus are manuals useless?