Why not a PROPER Majesty Game?

[Colombo]

Another factor to consider: what is good enough of a performance for a majesty sequel? I think we could do a majesty game that sells +25% better than M2, which sold ok. But the stakes are a bit higher today than they were in 2008.

Next week I'm going to bring this up with the person in charge of the majesty franchise and have an honest to god talk about M3 and see if anything's changed.

Regarding the earlier question. A game that has about 30 active players daily is really not good, then again it was released 6-7 years ago. If any of the majesty games would have had about 100 players it would be a strong indicator.

Both Fred and I would love to do M3. It's a question of figuring out how to do it in a way that works in today's market/our business.

Now back to W2!

/s

Thank you. Seriously, I would be happy that you are only talking with us, but this brings me good warm feelings in my hearth.

Another thing I would like to emphasize is what Majesty was. Quite a causal game. I think that with portfolio of EU and CK and new Runemaster, it could go quite well if it would adopt the same perspective, procedural generated content. Or do you don't look at Europe, while you are playing as eastern country, to see how these states are doing and how the situation in Europe evolve? I think that this was core experience of Majesty and that Majesty 2 lacked that. This is how I feel about it.

 

[Colombo]

I wouldn't go so far to say we poisoned the well... but you definitely have a point - look we understand majesty 2 wasn't the majesty game a lot of majesty fans were hoping for. We're not sitting around going - "damn those grumpy M1 players - why didn't they buy enough of M2!?" We know full well what the implications were of taking the game in another direction.

I wasn't around at the time when they designed it so I can't really say. But Paradox motto has always been - "we make games we like to play ourselves" and Majesty 2 is a game a lot of people internally at Paradox enjoy more than M1. Most prominently - our CEO Fred.

So don't make the mistake of assuming that an M3 would automatically mean us moving closer to M1 - it might even be a step further away.

That said - there are a lot of M1 fans as well - and when/if we seriously revisit the idea of doing another Majesty we'll make sure to gauge what the community feels. That's what makes us different from the Activisions/EA's - you can have this conversation with the person in charge of deciding what games is made next.

/shams

Interesting. Could you describe what do Paradox like on Majesty 2?
(or it is because Majesty 2 is YOUR game and thus you like YOUR game better?)

 

[Nague]

I agree. I am a big time majesty 2 fan, but whenevr people write about it on forums, they always complain about how hard and random it is and how they feel like they need to know in advance what will happen on the map.

That just sadly shows that most people dont get the Majesty series at all.


Maybe someday someone makes such an awesome Majesty 3, that people will educate themselves just to be able to play that game

 

[Grygus]

I think Majesty 2 had a lot of important improvements, actually. Obviously it looks better. The UI is vastly superior to the original game. There is a ton more depth in upgrading buildings and deciding when to pursue the unit buffs. The blacksmith is much more fleshed out. I like the building upgrades being closely tied to the palace level. I like the building caps. I like being able to make my own groups in the inn, though if someone wants to say that goes against Majesty's tenets I wouldn't argue very hard for it. I do think a Majesty 3 that does nothing except take M2 and add what's missing from the first game (e.g., more proactive AI, less linear progression, random maps) would be the best in the series. Majesty 2 is not a bad game by any means! It only suffers when you remember things that the first game had which would have improved M2 as well.

*Edit* Nague I don't think you're being entirely fair. It's a hard game, much harder than the first. Whether you like that is up to personal taste, but it's a legitimate criticism.

 

[Alfryd]

@Grygus: Obviously, the graphics are more advanced, but that's not the same thing. I always preferred the art direction of the original game, on the basis that rangers in ballcaps and mohawk skeletons are... retarded.

The UI is mostly better, and there's technically more diversity in building upgrades and unit spells. But there are fewer sovereign spells, and no tradeoffs between temples, which sucked a lot of the effective tactics/strategy out of the game. Everybody effectively gets magic and buys damage upgrades at the same place, so casters don't feel like anything special.

Things like party-formation, class-upgrades, and carrying heroes from quest to quest are all good ideas in principle, but wrecked by poor implementation. (For example, there's no thought given to why a hero might want to join a given party, given they'll never see a penny of the 500 gold you spend and might just end up on a redundant shopping expedition. Motives matter.)

Thank you. Seriously, I would be happy that you are only talking with us, but this brings me good warm feelings in my hearth.

Another thing I would like to emphasize is what Majesty was. Quite a causal game. I think that with portfolio of EU and CK and new Runemaster, it could go quite well if it would adopt the same perspective, procedural generated content. Or do you don't look at Europe, while you are playing as eastern country, to see how these states are doing and how the situation in Europe evolve? I think that this was core experience of Majesty and that Majesty 2 lacked that. This is how I feel about it.

Yeah, it's nice to get this kind of feedback. I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying below, though? Are you talking about how the outcome of quests emerged from heroes' decisions, in a semi-random way?

I would like to see a large-scale sandbox campaign included, actually, since one of the complaints I'd make about the original Majesty was the lack of any proper sense of connection between different quests and/or between different settlements. I don't want a linear railroad campaign (yet another aspect of Maj2 I disliked), but some sense of emergent cause-and-effect would be nice.

 

[Tarantian]

Even so - if we purely look at Majesty 1

A game released a generation ago for which there is no valid data to look at.

or heck put all the numbers together - concurrent users, forum activity (posts like yours)

Let's get even more incredibly stupid, how well did Master of Magic do? Why the hell even make Warlock since Master of Magic didn't sell so well? How many forum posts are there about Master of Magic?
Don't you see how transparently blatantly obviously erroneous and wrong headed that reasoning is? Especially for games that came out when Extended Play was a thing and half the population didn't have internet, when everyone had to buy from brick and mortar stores and only heard about games through word of mouth or magazines. That sort of data analysis just doesn't work for a lot of games released back then.

it all tells us there's smarter things we could be doing with our time/developers.

The argument you're giving represent everything that is wrong with the gaming industry. I stand by that statement. The rationale you just gave is utterly irrational, anyone who gives any thought to it at all should be able to see the problems with your reasoning. The data you're talking about is worthless for determining anything about how any game would sell today and no competent person would draw those kinds of conclusions from it.

If there are other things you have lined up or want to do fine more power to you, but the reasoning you give for why Majesty wouldn't be a smart project to work on is complete bunk.

We've got limited bandwidth as a company and we have to chose what we do.

That's fine, say that, but you're just wrong headed in your other argument, and your argument represents one of the worst problems with the gaming industry right now. That sort of craven amateurish attempt to analyze the market to predict how well a game could sell in the way you're doing it is completely irrational and logically fallacious.

A vocal minority

Every game Paradox makes is marketed towards a niche minority of gamers. Which makes this ridiculous argument you're making even more galling. Paradox of all companies should know better, and it should go without saying that you can't judge how well a game would sell with modern internet marketing, with a WTF is... by TotalBiscuit and Front Page on Steam, by how well a game sold a generation ago and how many people are talking about a game most people in today's market have never played or heard of. There's an untapped market out there that has never gotten to play anything like some of the old classics, and never will because of irrational and craven nonsense like this.

Really? Thinking like that has given us games like Crusader Kings, Warlock, Victoria, Teleglitch, Cities in Motion

Really? Being craven and irrationally writing off entire concepts and genres based on how many people were talking about them or how well a game sold over a decade ago gave us those games? Those bold niche games made for a minority of the gaming market that put Paradox on the map as a company that is willing to disregard the sort of crap you're talking about and make passion projects with depth and complexity?

I like Paradox, that hasn't changed, but this conversation has very much tarnished my opinion of the company and my enthusiasm about future projects.

 

[Alfryd]

Sheesh, Tarantian. You're gonna get us nuked, or something.

 

[Darkeus]

People like their Majesty I guess.... Yikes....

 

[Tarantian]

It's more that I just despise that sort of irrational and craven argument that could be summed up like this
"A game released over a decade ago with practically no advertising budget before half the world even had internet didn't sell amazingly, therefore the concept is fatally flawed and hardly anyone would want to play that sort of game."

Or

"Hardly anyone is talking about a game that came out over a decade ago that hardly anyone had access to, therefore a game like it couldn't sell well"

When it should be obvious that if people are even still talking about a game more than a decade later and have nothing but nice things to say about it, that indicates much more than how many people know to talk about it, besides which no one should assume that everyone interested in that sort of game would be talking about it when there's nothing relevant to discuss about it.

I just hate, utterly despise, that sort of industry attitude that goes around declaring genres dead based on such nonsense. It's what Shams arguments represent about the industry and the possible future corporate think of Paradox that will ruin them as a publisher of interesting niche titles one day, at that point it no longer has anything to do with whether or not a proper sequel to Majesty should be made, but how utterly contrived and logically fallacious the craven industry arguments are.

 

[Shams]

It's more that I just despise that sort of irrational and craven argument that could be summed up like this
"A game released over a decade ago with practically no advertising budget before half the world even had internet didn't sell amazingly, therefore the concept is fatally flawed and hardly anyone would want to play that sort of game."

Or

"Hardly anyone is talking about a game that came out over a decade ago that hardly anyone had access to, therefore a game like it couldn't sell well"

When it should be obvious that if people are even still talking about a game more than a decade later and have nothing but nice things to say about it, that indicates much more than how many people know to talk about it, besides which no one should assume that everyone interested in that sort of game would be talking about it when there's nothing relevant to discuss about it.

I just hate, utterly despise, that sort of industry attitude that goes around declaring genres dead based on such nonsense. It's what Shams arguments represent about the industry and the possible future corporate think of Paradox that will ruin them as a publisher of interesting niche titles one day, at that point it no longer has anything to do with whether or not a proper sequel to Majesty should be made, but how utterly contrived and logically fallacious the craven industry arguments are.

You make it sound so simple. We don't look at one single data point and make a decisions based on that. It's dozens of different factors that go into figuring out if a idea is worth exploring. Most of which you are not privy to. So it's very, very, easy to sit there and make bold statements about us being craven and conformist without having the entire picture. I think we've deserved the benefit of doubt thanks to our overall track record. I truly do. I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

Here's another aspect - supposedly we're making M3 for the old fans - right? But I sincerely believe that whatever we do - however good it may be - there's always going to be a crowd like yourself who won't be happy. Haters gonna hate. I've engaged in an open discourse with you and discussed the intricacies involved in deciding what game to do as a publisher. I discussion I'd dare you to be able to have with any other publisher. I've even said we'd specifically revisit the topic come business hours next week. Yet you decide to pounce on the things you don't happen to like in what I write. I don't think there's a single thing we could do to make you happy - so we're not going to try. I'd rather spend my time trying to please those that are civil, understanding and have positive and non-accusatory attitude.

Nothing good can come from having such a caustic attitude - especially in this community.

/shams

 

[pintocat]

Why is this spamming up the Warlock forum? Can this thread be moved...?

 

[Modjo]

Why is this spamming up the Warlock forum? Can this thread be moved...?

+1

 

[Alfryd]

Apologies in advance for the massive text dump. By all means, move the thread...


EDIT: I've decided to cut this post a bit shorter, pending feedback.


If you took the point of view that Majesty 1 was basically an RTS, it's certainly possible to find serious flaws in execution (notably, the way that dodge/parry mechanics and regular cash flow tend to result in lengthy stalemates during multiplayer, though dedicated deathmatch settings and the sorceror's abode mostly worked around that.) More generally, though, the basic problem with Majesty as an RTS is that your heroes aren't terribly reliable as underlings, and this possibly goes some way to explain the schizophrenic hero AI in Maj2: their lack of initiative combined with myopic avarice arguably gives the player more effective control over how heroes behave.

But you can see immediately that this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. It's like taking Crusader Kings and making all your vassals automatically loyal- all the dissent and spontaneity and stubbornness and dogmatism and lawful-stupid virtue and chaotic-stupid vice aren't a distraction from the gameplay- they are the gameplay.

I guess I'm saying it might never be possible to make Majesty into a really good RTS. Not without ceasing to be Majesty. So... I would suggest not to try. It's greatest strengths are as a Sim- so I'd build upon and deepen those. Not erase or sideline hero personalities, but give us more varied and subtle channels for indirectly manipulating them. Because Paradox are really fracking good at that.

The biggest obstacle to growing your market has always been your games' steep learning curves and stuffy-seeming subject matter and minimalist graphics. Now you have a franchise with the same core values, but it's child-friendly and inviting and pretty and easy to pick up, and I think it could be a trojan horse you ride straight into the wider market full of people who pay 60 dollars for Sims Vacation DLC.

<shrugs> My two cents.

 

[Colombo]

Alfryd: I don't think that this debate is fruitful. I think that we have clarified enough what Majesty meant to us. The question is, what Majesty means to Paradox?

Are you talking about how the outcome of quests emerged from heroes' decisions, in a semi-random way?

1. Random map
2. semi-random behaving enemies (they randomly travel through map and some of them are grouping for raids)
3. random behaving heroes
4. you can't influence quite a lot of outcomes directly

Hell, this looks quite a lot like EU or CK, where world revolves with clear trend but a lot of random behavior and player can't influence a lot of things directly. When Shams talk about what Paradox specialize on, randomly generated content -> replayability, this seems like quite a lot what Paradox would want to do.

 

[Alfryd]

Colombo, I am not disagreeing with you at all. I think that Paradox specialise in making games that are spiritually akin to Majesty in a number of core respects. And I absolutely agree about the importance of procedural content in ensuring replay value.

You know what I think the most telling sign is, though? You know those After Action Reports? Paradox games generate reams and reams of those. And quite a few people on the old cyberlore boards used to write-up their experiences in beating particular quests and tell little stories about what their heroes did to secure victory- not to mention the masses of collab fanfic, both serious and comedic. I don't think anyone wrote AARs for Maj2. Not once.

I'm just pointing out the games Paradox like to make and the sequel we'd want to play actually have a good deal in common.

 

[Colombo]

But if that's not the way they think of Majesty, then... maybe they should update that conception.

I think that we presumed quite a lot and before discussion could continue (and if discussion can continue, I mean not just our monologue), we need clear words about this from Shams. If he is willing to try to solve it with us and eg. not just debate it internally.

 

[Alfryd]

Yeah, you're probably right. I don't really have any hard data to go by here, just hunches and guesswork. Anyways, sorry to hog the thread.

 

[Tarantian]

You make it sound so simple. We don't look at one single data point and make a decisions based on that. It's dozens of different factors that go into figuring out if a idea is worth exploring.

Your data points are rubbish. There are no valid data points you could possibly use to determine how well a proper Majesty reboot would sell. You're doing the same sort of crap the Triple A industry did when deciding that genres were dead.

Here's another aspect - supposedly we're making M3 for the old fans - right?

That right there! That is part of the problem with your thinking. There is an entire untapped market of gamers out there that has never played anything like the original Majesty and would love a game that did it right. You act like the only people who would even buy a Majesty reboot would be fans of the original Majesty, and that's just Rubbish shams, and you know that's rubbish.

But I sincerely believe that whatever we do - however good it may be - there's always going to be a crowd like yourself who won't be happy. Haters gonna hate.

Not if you actually did it right and respected the source material instead of putting a sequel number on the end of a game that plays nothing like the original. But when in the history of anything has there ever been anything to indicate that calling something a sequel that is nothing like the original is going to go over well? It almost never happens, unless the original was seriously failing.

I've engaged in an open discourse with you and discussed the intricacies involved in deciding what game to do as a publisher. I discussion I'd dare you to be able to have with any other publisher.

True shams and kudos for that but your argument for why a proper Majesty reboot wouldn't sell is still rubbish. I definitely appreciate that Paradox doesn't just block anyone over anything like EA but the industry think you're arguing is still erroneous and part of a wide spread problem in the gaming industry. You may not be acting like a Triple A dev on the forums but you're thinking and talking like one, at least in this.

I've even said we'd specifically revisit the topic come business hours next week. Yet you decide to pounce on the things you don't happen to like in what I write. I don't think there's a single thing we could do to make you happy

You know what you could do to make me happy shams? Stop making rubbish arguments declaring genres to be dead and unmarketable.

 

[Darkeus]

More results with honey than vinegar....

o

 

[player1 fanatic]

Your data points are rubbish.

And you are rude.

Stop making rubbish arguments declaring genres to be dead and unmarketable.

Sorry, if this sounds so direct, but your tone is really hostile to both the devs and producers, who are trying to have reasonable discussion, unlike you.


If anything, this discussion shows that Shams has deep skin, which has my respect. If it was someone else, that person would probably just ignore you. Why even bother discussing anything with someone who does evern try to be respectful in discussion.