My SCL first impressions

[Doctor Futurity]

Even if most potential players are completely oblivious to PnP and FR, this game has little draw. The DM mode appeals mostly to PnP fans, the campaign story (which I've heard is good) caters specifically to those with knowledge of the Forgotten Realms - not the casual players. So what you have falling back on would be good action gameplay, but truly, Diablo 3 looks 10x better than this game, is much better balanced, has more exciting loot and is just more exciting to play.

I agree it's got a measure of action RPG DNA in it's mix, but Diablo 3 is a different sort of experience from what Sword Coast Legends offers. Real ARPGs like Diablo 3 are fun but they lack substance.* SCL is much closer to tactical and exploratory RPGs in this sense, even if you can play it like it's an ARPG to a certain degree. This game plays closer to how I wished Diablo 3 would have, and I think that there are an enormous number of people out there who feel that way (ergo why Pillars of Eternity, Divinity: Original Sin and Wasteland 2 are so popular). SCL will feed well in to that need, but I'll agree that the fans won't be people who love the Diablo 3 style of play; that's really not the same as what SCL and other isometric RPGs offer, even if there are action RPG similarities.






*to clarify: if Diablo 3 had the "susbtance" I am talking about then we'd also be comparing it to games like Dragon Age: Inquisition or Baldur's Gate. Which we don't, because they are in separate realms of story scope, decision making and complexity. SCL has an auto-attack element and is a top-down perspective, yes....but it's design leans closer to the Dragon Age side of storytelling (or Baldur's Gate side, more accurately) and far, far less the Diablo 3 side, which is a programmed story with no real choice other than to keep charging up your kill totals and unlocks.

 

[Reinhart]

While I was disappointed with the lack of features for DM's and a lack of authentic D&D game mechanics, I do think SCL has a unique set of features compared to most computer RPG's.

Sword Coast Legends differs from most action RPG's (like Diablo) in that SCL is more focused on a party of detailed characters instead of a singular heroic player avatar. That's a significant difference in the single-player experience that makes it closer to Dragon Age. Of course, the multi-player experience is probably quite similar to Diablo-clones in that each player is controlling only one custom avatar. That said, Diablo doesn't have a DM mode so you're getting something novel either way. It's too bad the marketing of this game was so mismanaged. You'd think the response to 4e D&D would have made it clear that many fans have very strong preconceptions about what makes a set of rules "D&D." Be very careful how you court those customers.

 

[JValeur]

I agree it's got a measure of action RPG DNA in it's mix, but Diablo 3 is a different sort of experience from what Sword Coast Legends offers. Real ARPGs like Diablo 3 are fun but they lack substance.* SCL is much closer to tactical and exploratory RPGs in this sense, even if you can play it like it's an ARPG to a certain degree. This game plays closer to how I wished Diablo 3 would have, and I think that there are an enormous number of people out there who feel that way (ergo why Pillars of Eternity, Divinity: Original Sin and Wasteland 2 are so popular). SCL will feed well in to that need, but I'll agree that the fans won't be people who love the Diablo 3 style of play; that's really not the same as what SCL and other isometric RPGs offer, even if there are action RPG similarities.

*to clarify: if Diablo 3 had the "susbtance" I am talking about then we'd also be comparing it to games like Dragon Age: Inquisition or Baldur's Gate. Which we don't, because they are in separate realms of story scope, decision making and complexity. SCL has an auto-attack element and is a top-down perspective, yes....but it's design leans closer to the Dragon Age side of storytelling (or Baldur's Gate side, more accurately) and far, far less the Diablo 3 side, which is a programmed story with no real choice other than to keep charging up your kill totals and unlocks.

I'm talking about how it plays, not just the story. I agree that the story in the campaign is a lot closer to Dragon Age, and while you can compare the actual gameplay mechanics (skilltrees, cooldowns, etc.) it's not really the same thing, since Dragon Age isn't a classic isometric game. It's a different beast. Hence the Diablo comparison, which to me, is really the closest to the actual gameplay feeling (for me, at least). However, even if you compare it to Dragon Age, it loses both storywise and gameplay wise as well - so no win there.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

My point is, this game has been marketed one way, designed a second way, and plays a third way. It wants to do a lot of different things, and does neither really good. It's not a faithful D&D RPG. It's not a very good action RPG. It's not an extensive world-building tool.

And this is a major problem. Who do they think is primarily planning to buy this? People who are attracted to the D&D label--and most of those probably play the TTRPG.

If someone doesn't care about D&D, I'm going to guess that there are better games out there.

D&D label = draws D&D fans.

I mean, this ought to be patently obvious. Build a product for the same audience you are marketing it to.

People really need to invest a bit in consumer response consulting before making business decisions.

 

[Morrus]

And this is a major problem. Who do they think is primarily planning to buy this? People who are attracted to the D&D label--and most of those probably play the TTRPG.

If someone doesn't care about D&D, I'm going to guess that there are better games out there.

D&D label = draws D&D fans.

I mean, this ought to be patently obvious. Build a product for the same audience you are marketing it to.

People really need to invest a bit in consumer response consulting before making business decisions.

We can all make snotty comments about how companies make decisions, and how much cleverer than them we are - hell, it's an Internet requirement - but it seems to be doing just fine.

I submit that your expert market analysis is less thorough than theirs.

 

[Reinhart]

but it seems to be doing just fine.

Does it though? SLC's ratings so far on Steam and Metacritic are both less than 60%. Keep in mind that in many development studios, desks get cleared for aggregate approval ratings less than 80%. (I don't necessarily agree with that stance, but it happens.) We can skip talking about the self-selection process of negative reports, because most successful CRPG's have a more favorable reaction than we're seeing so far. Shadowrun Returns and Pillars of Eternity both have ratings around 90%. Something's different here. Of course, it may not be the quality of the game, but the difference in how public expectations were managed.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Morrus has the right of it. There are way, way, way more videogame players than TT D&D players. Way, way more RPG videogame players than TT D&D players. Orders of magnitude greater audience.

One data point: according to this aggregator, the 5E PHB has sold 50,000 copies on Amazon. Since launch.

Another data point: according to Steam Spy, SCL has sold 42,000 copies (+/- 5,000). Since yesterday.

The fact of the matter is, the general RPG videogame audience dwarfs the TT RPG audience (nevermind the D&D TT RPG audience).

Now, does that mean that the D&D TT RPG audience should be ignored? Absolutely not. That's the game's core. Those are the people that champion the game, and therefore the brand, for years and years, and spread the love to others. Including, nowadays, their kids. It'd be extremely foolish for a brand to ignore the people who love the brand the most.

But it does mean that when making either/or decisions (like "should this videogame be like most other videogames, or should it be like the TT RPG?") a conservative choice is to go with what you think will appeal to the larger audience.

I don't think that's necessarily the right decision. Nowadays, videogame players crave novelty--they're bored of the same-old. Plus, the same-old gameplay in this specific example is better executed by other games. And, one of the most popular RPG videogames in the world (albeit, French), Dofus, has turn-based combat. As does one of most critically-acclaimed RPGs in recent memory, The Banner Saga. It's not like RPG videogamers are allergic to turns.

But I can see how a brand could come to the conclusion that the best way to ensure a RPG videogame reaches success is to make that RPG videogame as similar to most other RPG videogames as possible.

My hope is that SCL does well, and gets a lot of people interested in the Forgotten Realms, and eventually interested in D&D. And I hope that someone, somewhere, is working on a turn-based RPG videogame that actually does play like D&D.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Of course, it may not be the quality of the game, but the difference in how public expectations were managed.

This is the crux of it. The marketing for SCL repeatedly referenced "actual D&D ruleset." SCL doesn't include that feature. Which is disappointing. Not objectively, but because of a mismatch of expectations and reality.

If the game had been called "The Forgotten Realms: Storm Coast Legends", and didn't mention the D&D rules anywhere, nobody would say boo. It's not like anyone considered Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance "a D&D game." That was clearly an action/RPG hybrid set in the Forgotten Realms. It wasn't, and wasn't marketed as, a D&D game.

I'm sure it'll still be a big success. The DM mode is a very cool innovation that people have been wishlisting for years. I can see SCL being a big hit at LANs, and for D&D groups that can't get together in person but still want to play a game together that involves the holy trinity of kicking down doors, killing monsters, and taking their stuff.

 

[Dargrimm]

This is the crux of it. The marketing for SCL repeatedly referenced "actual D&D ruleset." SCL doesn't include that feature. Which is disappointing. Not objectively, but because of a mismatch of expectations and reality.

If the game had been called "The Forgotten Realms: Storm Coast Legends", and didn't mention the D&D rules anywhere, nobody would say boo. It's not like anyone considered Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance "a D&D game." That was clearly an action/RPG hybrid set in the Forgotten Realms. It wasn't, and wasn't marketed as, a D&D game.

I'm sure it'll still be a big success. The DM mode is a very cool innovation that people have been wishlisting for years. I can see SCL being a big hit at LANs, and for D&D groups that can't get together in person but still want to play a game together that involves the holy trinity of kicking down doors, killing monsters, and taking their stuff.

Those are my thoughts EXACTLY. My problem with the game is not with the game itself but with the way it was (and it is being) advertised. Because SCL it is NOT D&D (not even remotely).

 

[psimon85]

Sure, of course. There are also, naturally, budget concerns with prolonging a development cycle or starting it later. Yet there are two distinct philosophies in videogame development at the moment: 1) Take your time and get it right, and 2) Let's get it out the door so we can strike while the iron is hot. WotC clearly opted for the latter, and that's one of the reasons the 5e rules aren't 100% involved in the gameplay. Yes they could have waited and made a truer adaptation, but they decided not to. Couple that with the fact that they might have wanted a more action-y game rather than strict turn-based, this is probably the end result. Don't think there's much more to it really. It's not like wishing for it to be a truer adaptation will make it into one. I think Morrus has the right approach: take it for what it is, and see if the gameplay holds up.

Sorry I can't agree with "take it for what it is" not when they branded it as a D&D game with the 5th ed ruleset. There are too many thing missing for it to be either of those things which were massive selling points!

If they had put out as an independent action game fine, I'd have no issue with that. Infact the game is good and does the action thing well.

They seem to have the lore pretty down, but for me that's as far as the D&D experience goes. As for the 5th ed ruleset...I was hopeful during character creation, then I met the abilities selection. That felt like I had bricks tied to me and thrown in the sea.

It's a shame that it was, imo totally mismarketed as d&d with 5the ed rules. We couldn't the just say action game that WotC helped develop?!