Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6941950" data-attributes="member: 7006">That's not the point.Here was     [MENTION=6776548]Corpsetaker[/MENTION]'s original comment that I responded to:He is claiming that the D&D brand for video games on the whole is being hurt because SCL was a bad game.  And that D&D's "reputation" as a license is thus being harmed.  Which is baloney.  That would mean that a video game company who is making an RPG would quite possibly choose NOT to base it upon D&D because the "D&D brand" for video games has been harmed too much and thus making your RPG with any other brand (licensed or new) would lead to more success than using D&D instead.Which is ridiculous.If an RPG does well or doesn't do well, it'll have almost nothing to do with the branding on top of it... it'll have to do with whether or not the game actually works and is good.  Maybe it'll have the D&D brand on top of it... maybe it won't.  If a game is bad, is it because the branding screwed it up, or is it because the game is just lousy?  9 times out of 10 (and probably like 99 times out of 100), it's cause the GAME sucks, not the brand they used on it.I mean, here's an interesting thought experiment:  Name a video game whose gameplay was good, fun, and engaging... but because of the branding they used to fluff it, screwed the game up and made it bomb.  And had they instead released it without that branding, it would've done better and gone from a failure to an out-and-out success.I can think of hundreds of games in the reverse... where the brand used was strong but the game died because gameplay blew chunks and was poorly made... but nothing's coming to mind the other way round.  I'd be very interested to see what other people come up with on that.</blockquote>

Verification