I second that. The advantage of a digital manual is that it can be updated... however, most companies simply publish addendae or put crucial game facts in readmes that nobody reads. I'd like to have a manual that held strictly true information.

Note that the manual was wrong when the game came out, not just as a result of a patch.

I also read readmes, but they are usually useless as a resource to users. When I want to know fact X, I can either:

a) look it up in the manual;
or look it up in the manual, then check EVERY LINE OF EVERY README to see if it changed.

In computer science, we use hashtables (O(1)) rather than forcing a CPU to look at every element to find what it wants (O(n)). Why should the user be treated worse than a CPU?


For example, look at Master of Magic. It has - bar none - the best 'manual set' I've ever seen. There's a complete manual and complete spell manual.

However... you can never rely on them without also consulting the readmes, as there are a LOT of changes in the final version. I still rate MoM #1 in terms of manuals, but that's just because they had the best initial manual, and nobody else updates their manuals either. And furthermore, you can't update a hard copy, so they're exempted.

Wikis and readme's are great, but, some gamers, like me, like having something to read and enjoy, not just reading a changelog or browsing through hyper-text links on a website. I often read my user manual, even after I've had the game for weeks, finding new things, getting inspiration to try new ideas out, and just having something to read while on the throne. Of course, a pdf manual is a bit hard to read in the restroom, but, you get the idea.