Sword coast legend questions.

[Ahrimon]

But that's the thing... It is not a D&D computer game. If instead of advertising it as a D&D based game they'd done it as a game based on the Forgotten Realms (but with it own rules) there wouldn't be such uproar. It all boils down to misleading advertising, and thus wrong expectations.

I'm sure the game will be fun, but it is not a D&D game no matter what the developers say.

I think we have a Ben Kenobi point of view difference here. From my point of view it is based on the DnD 5.0 rules. It has many of the thematic and story elements of 5.0 as well as many of the abilities are there in name. The only place it differs is in the execution of the adventuring mechanics, but from my point of view, that's ok. The game would be horridly boring if you could only do two or three fights and then had to retreat for a short rest. Or when the fighter is siting there clicking on an enemy and then going to the bathroom because all their character does is swing their sword since they are a champion or out of maneuver dice. Or the wizard spamming his cantrip and nothing but his cantrip because it's the 4th fight of the dungeon and he's out of spells. Woo boy, that'd be exciting... Would the game auto pause every time an enemy left someone's area so that person could decide if they wanted to take their reaction attack? Would it pause constantly every time the rogue or wizard got attacked so they could decide if they wanted to use their dodge or cast a shield spell?

I can understand that people thought they were getting a digital version of 5.0 but I think that they set themselves up for failure by assuming that based on 5e meant a digital re-creation of 5e. I won't argue with you though, you are welcome to your feelings on the matter, but this wasn't misleading advertising.

 

[Reinhart]

Regardless of its intent, marketing that results in its customers having the wrong impression of the product is, by definition, misleading. Just glancing at the steam community for this game shows a lot of people who ended up with different expectations than the reality. I'm naturally skeptical of advertising, but even I got the impression from the ads that this would be more like Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights. It's only when I looked into the game before buying it that I found it to be radically different from how it was portrayed in its press releases. The consternation of those people who pre-ordered the game and found out it was totally different from what they were told came as absolutely no surprise here.

I suspect that the game's developers were very aware of the differences between D&D and their own RPG, but I don't think the developers wanted to sell their game as something it's not. Someone in a marketing role, either at Digital Extremes or Hasbro, made that decision, and it's solely the reason why people are so upset about this game. And if you think this is a problem with the public and not the marketing for the product, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of marketing and advertising. That's like a weather forecaster blaming the weather for why his predictions are so bad.

 

[RedSiegfried]

The term "misleading advertising" is a redundancy anyway.

 

[Morrus]

He's got a point. Somebody got 56 hours of play out of a game and THEN asked for a refund? It's like someone eating their meal at a restaurant and then asking for a refund.

If you hate it that much, you aren't going to play it for 56 hours.

 

[Corpsetaker]

He's got a point. Somebody got 56 hours of play out of a game and THEN asked for a refund? It's like someone eating their meal at a restaurant and then asking for a refund.

If you hate it that much, you aren't going to play it for 56 hours.

He doesn't have a point.

He spent 56 hours on a "demo", not a full game. Also, if you've beta tested games before, you will know that lots of people will spend days testing a game before they commit to it. 56 hours is nothing compared to the norm. I have tested loads of games in the past and 56 hours is a small amount of time. The game has lots of combinations with regards to race and class so it would take a significant amount of time to test each one. The loading times of the game are very slow as well, not to mention we don't know if the player walked away and left the game up which still runs up the clock over on Steam.

CEO's are supposed to have a level of professionalism and this guy clearly doesn't. Not a good image for the game or the company.

 

[Morrus]

He doesn't have a point.

He spent 56 hours on a "demo", not a full game. Also, if you've beta tested games before, you will know that lots of people will spend days testing a game before they commit to it. 56 hours is nothing compared to the norm. I have tested loads of games in the past and 56 hours is a small amount of time. The game has lots of combinations with regards to race and class so it would take a significant amount of time to test each one. The loading times of the game are very slow as well, not to mention we don't know if the player walked away and left the game up which still runs up the clock over on Steam.

CEO's are supposed to have a level of professionalism and this guy clearly doesn't. Not a good image for the game or the company.

Meh. He wasn't playing the beta version out of the goodness of his heart. He was playing it because he wanted to.

Don't worry; we totally get how much you hate this game and the company, @Corpsetaker. You've made it excruciatingly and repeatedly clear.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm having a lot of fun with the game.

Demanding that it sticks 150% to the TTRPG rules is a bit unrealistic for a computer game. Especially a multi-player one. If it was a single player game it could stick closer to the book rules, ala the temple of elemental evil game.

For a D&D computer game I think it's great and a good amount of fun. I'm looking forward to the single player story.

Nobody is demanding it stick to the rules more than 100%.

But it doesn't even attempt to reach 80%, it simply doesn't use the rules at all.

So it shouldn't be advertised as such!

 

[CapnZapp]

I think we have a Ben Kenobi point of view difference here. From my point of view it is based on the DnD 5.0 rules. It has many of the thematic and story elements of 5.0 as well as many of the abilities are there in name. The only place it differs is in the execution of the adventuring mechanics, but from my point of view, that's ok. The game would be horridly boring if you could only do two or three fights and then had to retreat for a short rest. Or when the fighter is siting there clicking on an enemy and then going to the bathroom because all their character does is swing their sword since they are a champion or out of maneuver dice. Or the wizard spamming his cantrip and nothing but his cantrip because it's the 4th fight of the dungeon and he's out of spells. Woo boy, that'd be exciting... Would the game auto pause every time an enemy left someone's area so that person could decide if they wanted to take their reaction attack? Would it pause constantly every time the rogue or wizard got attacked so they could decide if they wanted to use their dodge or cast a shield spell?

I can understand that people thought they were getting a digital version of 5.0 but I think that they set themselves up for failure by assuming that based on 5e meant a digital re-creation of 5e. I won't argue with you though, you are welcome to your feelings on the matter, but this wasn't misleading advertising.

We don't want a "horribly boring" game, we just wish they wouldn't use blatant falsehoods in their marketing.

You, on the other hand, REALLY need to stop setting up straw men. Stop attributing ridiculous claims to the side you're arguing against!

 

[Corpsetaker]

Meh. He wasn't playing the beta version out of the goodness of his heart. He was playing it because he wanted to.

Don't worry; we totally get how much you hate this game and the company, @Corpsetaker. You've made it excruciatingly and repeatedly clear.

Well of course he wanted to play it. Not really sure why that's relevant because that is a given. I purchase things I want just like I purchased this because it was what I wanted. I was led to believe it was one thing but it ended up being something else, that is why I got my money back. Some of us like to play things extensively in order to make decision.

They should have introduced the head start first and then let people decide if they wanted to buy it or not.

 

[Morrus]

Well of course he wanted to play it. Not really sure why that's relevant because that is a given. I purchase things I want just like I purchased this because it was what I wanted. I was led to believe it was one thing but it ended up being something else, that is why I got my money back. Some of us like to play things extensively in order to make decision.

They should have introduced the head start first and then let people decide if they wanted to buy it or not.

Again, meh. You don't spend 56 hours engaging in an activity you dislike unless it's your job or you're insane. I think the developer's response was wholly appropriate.