Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbografx
It doesn't necessarily affect the quality of the game but rather the product as a whole.
Also, these manuals were not just gimmicks, they were detailed explanations of the game and how it plays. Maybe simulators these days just aren't complicated enough to warrant such a manual.
|
Exactly. I owned several of the games mentioned so far (Lucas Arts' Battle of Britain, Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe, Falcon 3.0) and I absolutely loved the amount of detail in the manuals. You knew that the games' producers were truly interested in their field and had in-depth knowledge about the technology being simulated. In many cases they were combat veterans (or collaborated with veterans) to make sure that the games were as accurate as possible. To this day I love reading my Lucas Arts manuals. Quotes from men who were actually there, diagrams of tactics, strategic analysis - the works. More practically, you got more than a bare-bones intro into how to play the game - if you took the time to read, you would be fairly well prepared.
IMHO a game's manual is more intimately tied into product quality than a car's user manual - it's a reflection of the expertise/passion that its developers have for the subject being covered - especially in the case of a simulation. With "Jutland", Storm Eagle Studios proved that it's possible to design a modern PDF manual that's thorough and a good read. Unfortunately, SES seems to be a rare exception.
To beat the car analogy into the ground, a game with a sparse manual is like a Porsche that ships from the factory with a cracked windshield & scratched finish. Neither of those things would make the car unsuitable for its purpose, but they certainly would cause you to reflect on issues such as Porsche's quality, reputation, pride in work, and whether or not you as a customer truly got what you paid for.