I have been to La Ronde yesterday and my head is still spinning a bit, but I'll do my best to make this coherent...

http://www.gog.com/en/mix/games_that_have_no_manual

You guys don't offer the manual for the above games.

I noticed that you seem to go out of your way to offer a lot of extra with your games so it doesn't seem right that you don't offer manuals for some games.

Now, you may think the presence or absence of the manual won't matter in the bottom line and I will now prove you wrong.

I own Age of Wonders and it is already mostly DRM free (you can play without the CD). I don't have any reason to buy it again, but for 3$, I would have bought it here for the soundtrack (which is totally awesome).

However, I'll sacrifice having this awesome soundtrack on my MP3 and won't buy it because the manual is not provided (yes, I have the manual, but it's a principle thing) so you just lost a whole 3$ (or whatever cut you make on the 3$ you charge).

Ok, now that I have your attention...

Soundtracks, avatars, wallpapers and whatnot are VERY cool (especially the soundtracks), but I don't EXPECT them to be provided with games (they really are a bonus).

However, I expect manuals to be offered with every game, because they are an official part of the game.

They are the developer's insight into their product and they matter.

Anybody can have a blond week when playing a game and it's always nice to have the manual tell you: "Hey dumb dumb, look what you've been missing so far in the game!".

And of course, there are the hopelessly clueless players that should not be discriminated upon (very easy mode exists for a reason, grandma is entitled to enjoy the game just like anyone else) and need to be told the obvious in the manual.

And let's not forget the occasional expended story, "dedicated to" part and foreword by the developers (who may indicate their inspiration, state of mind, vision concerning how the game should be interpreted or whatnot).

Now, if you told me that Pinball Gold Pack doesn't come with a manual or that you somehow couldn't procure it, I'd totally believe you.

However, there are LEGIONS of people out there who own AoW, AoW: Wizard's Throne and AoW: Shadow Magic and there is no way that nobody in that group would happily lend you a copy of their manual for you to scan it and provide it to your users.

So, talk to us [Those who are irritated about the absense of manuals in some games]. Tell us about your feelings. Relationships need an open line of communication to work.

Is it a legal thing? Does the companies that own the games think it's a sound business decision that their games be sold without the manual? Or did someone get separate rights for the manuals ("Yes, I just purchase the rights to Age of Wonder's manual, but not the game... that was an extraordinary investment!")?

I'd really like to hear an official response on this.

Yeah, I've been itching to get that VR Soccer '96 manual ...

Seriously though, it might just be that the manuals are just not available anywhere. For some of these games you won't even find a manual on replacementdocs, and when you can't find it on replacementdocs it's pretty much not available. The publisher themselves might not have a original copy of it.

Also, some of the games probably never had a manual. Tyrian 2000 for example never had a manual to my knowledge.

A few of the games did have manuals though, and some of them are available on replacementdocs, so I can't answer that. An oversight? Publishers being wonky? Only GoG knows.

I don't have all the games on your list, but I checked those that I had, and both MegaRace and Personal Nightmare have manuals included in their installs.

Serious Sam has a manual and so does the Age of Wonders Saga.

I'd need confirmation for Age of Wonders (whether the manual is in the install directory), but for Serious Sam, I know it isn't there. Well, I'd like to know. That's awesome.

I guess the next part would be the standardize the format.

Either put all the manuals as separate downloadable add-ons or included in the install directory.

If the manuals of some games that have them won't be included with the game, I think separate downloadable add-ons might be better (that way, the user can know about it prior to purchase... makes for a more honest transaction). Thanks, I updated the GOG Mix with the info.

[useless post:]
A Jagged Alliance Deadly Games manual to make me fully understand the editor - wet dream since 1998.

I can give you the official answer to this on behalf of GOG because I've emailed them about this and they have responded. Unfortunately, GOG cannot obtain the legal rights to some of these manuals. I very specifically complained to GOG about the Shadow Magic manual not being made available. They informed me that the rights to the manual are amazingly enough held by a party independent of the current software license holder. I am certain that GOG wants to provide us with manuals to all of their games but the unfortunate reality is that sometimes they can't. Fortunately most manuals can be found on replacementdocs.com as other posters have indicated.

Return to Krondor badly needs a manual and GOG does NOT provide it. Luckily some of the forum members did.

While I agree it would be nice to have manuals, portions of this argument irk me greatly. You're on express train to Fallacy Town. This is also the basic reasoning for the deadly sin Invidia, commonly called "jealousy". Just because x has something, it doesn't make the demand for y (from the same category) to have it valid. That's LOW AS HELL. There is a reason people don't negotiate with terrorists, you know.
And yes - I understand it probably was in jest, but it wasn't exactly in good taste. Grandma has the right to enjoy my ass.
Enjoying something is not a right, it's a priviledge. Enjoyment is something you EARN.

Preferably - by prying it from the cold, dead hands of difficulty ;P.

Thank you for that clarification.

Now, I know that even more people than I thought possible yesterday are aholes. Well, if you buy a game new, you'll get the manual.

Ideally, the games they sell should as much as possible at least be on par with buying a new game (well, the virtual equivalent).

I don't care whether other people who bought the game when it first came out have the manual and I don't. This is irrelevant for my personal experience (and actually, I already have the manuals for the AoW series and can now get the manual for Serious Sam on the website the first poster mentioned so my personal selfish interest in the manual being provided for those games is nil).

The point is that the developers created these games with the implicit agreement that they would be played with the manual (which often imply no tutorial in-game which there might have been without a manual).

The manual IS part of the game, more than any other extra. I don't think it will significantly affect their bottom-line, maybe cost them a bit goodwill from some customers (which is why it is in their own interest to clarify the situation), but that's it.

So yes, I was being silly. I don't know what to tell you. I'm a populist.

I think that whenever possible without sacrificing the experience of the target audience, games should be made as accessible as possible.

In this case, it is in their own interest that as many possible as possible enjoy the games.

I mean, it is not in the interest of game providers to be elitists (ex: "Look at my game, it is so hardcore that only Einstein could enjoy it properly, it will sell!").

I fully agree. Like I said - I share the sentiment, I just strongly disagree with the arguments and rhetoric you used.

Did they ? Is it something about the games in question or do you simply mean that because of having no tutorials they should have a manual ? Because that's... more of an expectation than an agreement, implicit or otherwise...

/me wags finger in disapproval.

I'm a philosopher. I don't like your kind ;P.

You're not a populist, you're a masochist. You don't use the word "accessible" willy-nilly among PC gamers; you're going to get barraged with "dumbed down for console-tards" interpretations any minute now ;P.

I'm not really fond of trying to appeal to everyone :|. I don't want to say that I resent any and all attempts at fiscal sanity but I certainly don't like the cold, rational bobbykotticism.
Check this out, BTW.

So, yeah, they should have manuals if possible. That doesn't mean that games should be made "more accessible". You know why ? Because the nature of interactive media implies effort and a chance of failure. There is a difference between being appreciABLE and easy to digest. Overall - it IS in the gamers' best interest, because they won't have the same fun without the satisfaction of overcoming their own weaknesses, learning to cope with problems, discovering fascinated, convoluted and text-heavy plot or competing with others in a virtual environment.

Now, if you'll excuse, I have a thesis to write on play and its role in forming culture ;P.

One that is kinda worth having on there is Patrician 1 & 2. Patrician 2 has its manual but not number 1, and as a result I have not been able to figure that one out!

That is your right.

The game developers created the game. They had something in mind concerning the experience they wanted to create for the user when they made the game.

At that point, they made a decision concerning whether a manual would be a useful tool to foster that experience or not.

If they made a manual, then it is inclusive in their vision of the game and is part of it.

Maybe they thought some of the mechanics would be unclear to some users and included clarifications in the manual.

Maybe they wanted to provide more background for the game for those who are interested in such things.

Many reasons they would want to include a manual.

It's healthy to laugh once in a while.

So, being a populist AND a philosopher are mutually exclusive?

That's not what I was told in my philosophy classes.

Creating a game tailored for a more hardcore audience while making it more accessible are not always mutually exclusive.

Maybe they explain stuff in the manual that some will find trivial. Then, they are not obligated to read it.

Maybe they'll put a tutorial that many players will skip over.

Maybe they'll put a difficulty scale ranging from easy to impossible.

I don't have a problem with those accommodations. I think they are great.

My point is that yes, they had a vision for the game and should not compromise on it just to "dumb down" the game.

However, there are reasonable additions they can provide to increase the accessibility of the game without compromising their vision.

Read above.

If you are really a philosopher, then you should be sensible enough to try to be more inclusive when possible.

Now, if you excuse me, I have a web game to work on.

I was actually laughing while writing that reply xP. I have no idea how you could've honestly treated something so ridiculous seriously...

To a degree. The latter seeks the truth, the former tells people what they want to hear.
Also - those were two sentences next to each other, they don't necessarily have to form an implication. And even if they do - it doesn't have to mean "every philosopher dislikes every populist" (note - there is a difference between not liking and not being). It could simply be a more casual "As a philosopher, I dislike populists" implying a more personal touch and vague correlation.

Well, I have no idea what you WERE told there, but it sounds worrisome.

Well, that was a curious ad hominem ;P.

I would also like to reiterate that I probably mostly agree with what you think, so there's not much point in being so... rough :[.

It is only possible to simplify things to a certain degree without altering the basic gameplay mechanics completely to cater to a different crowd, that's one thing.
Sure, the challenge usually can be scaled even within those restraints.

I simply intended to say that I'm against situations where games don't have the necessary "depth" and hope that gamers gain satisfaction through effort. You know - accessible but not "accessible".

humor is such a personal thing.

Sometimes, truth is objective and sometimes, truth is what you make of it.

Whether the earth goes around the sun is less up to popular opinion and more to scientific method.

For other things, truth is what you make of it. This is certainly the case when creating a game (if it isn't, I don't know what is).

When things are less about knowing and more about opinating, populism is not a bad stance to take.

We were taught the teachings of various philosophers.

Plato doesn't have a monopoly on philosophy.


Actually, it was a paradox. It's probably what humans have the hardest time with (according to my AI teacher anyways).

Sorry, I've had a lot of bad experiences with "right wing" elitist thinkers. I shouldn't take it out on you.

That is my opinion, yes.

However, it is worth noting that sometimes, complexity doesn't add much to the experience. At that time, it's often a good idea to cut.

The best question to ask yourself I find is: "Is this interesting or not?". If the answer is yes, keep it otherwise toss it.