|
mazorj -> RE: Game didn't include manual (12/27/2010 5:13:28 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RD_Oddball
No sarcasm intended. There are a variety of ways a manual can be approached and have seen such in other titles. All of them effective for how they were intended. Some include the most basic set of information to get users started while others attempt to explain every last detail and nuance. The CC manuals have always been somewhere in between. While going further than most manuals there have always been details left out. Not saying there shouldn't be more detail just saying it set a precedent and was followed. It's neither here nor there from my standpoint the manuals have always worked fine for me. I need practical examples and reading about them, at some point. does me little good. I need to see them in practice. So if adding detail is important to someone else (i.e. their standards) then it's important to me and we will take every opportunity to make those improvements.
Only providing a .pdf of the manual is a two-edged sword.
Reading from a hardcopy printed manual is much easier. However, most printed manuals at best are a decent first draft of what users need. The advantage of .pdf manuals is that they can be continually updated as downloads. In fact they should be continually updated to reflect user comments and requests. As a WAG, I'd say that each release could use at least 3-4 interim updates of its manual in the first year after a game release. I am not aware of this being done with any of my Matrix WW2 games. We get one or two game updates plus modded scenarios but nothing in the line of between-release updates of the manual.
Since there are no associated printing costs with .pdf manuals, I see the Matrix policy of providing "in between" manuals instead of highly detailed versions (plus no interim updates) as a bit of cheapskating. Typo errors - as I found in LSA - also tell me that manuals are not a very high priority feature for game releases. It appears that a "good enough for commercial release" attitude prevails.
I'm not saying that every last niggling thought in the developer's head should be included in a manual; but as the comments here have shown, players of highly specialized niche game systems such as CC will welcome and readily devour a highly detailed manual. This includes both developer commentary and guidance as well as the basic information that often goes MIA because the developers assume that players are as familiar with the game as they are or will figure it out on their own (or just plain old corner-cutting when it comes to quality control for the completeness of manuals).
Flaws in the AI, scenario editing tools, the quality of graphics, how to tie strategic-level outcomes to a few small-unit battles, etc. are deeply rooted systemic issues and not easily fixed. OTOH, problems with manuals are "surface issues" that can be readily fixed by a decent wordsmith creating new downloadable versions.
Bottom Line: Please don't skimp on details - pour it on! - and make it a standard practice to provide downloadable interim updates to the .pdf manuals.
|
|
|
|
