|
Lord Lambeth posted:I'm pretty sure someone has already done the concept of "which ancient warrior would win in a fight". And I think it was with actual physical cards. I don't know if this is what you were thinking of, but there is (The History Channel's) Anachronism. I haven't played it, but from all accounts it is an incredibly simple game lacking all depth and probably historical accuracy. I believe this was released in 2005, so I don't know if The History Channel actually showed stuff of historical relevance or if it was just all conspiracy theories all the time by then. On another note, I am fairly certain the only acronym more anathemous to consumers than CCG is MMO. Both of them require a critical mass of supporters to be successful, since they inherently require a lot of people to be playing them all the time. Considering most game companies have abandoned the (physical) CCG for the inevitable failure that it is, good luck with that. Maybe you should consider the LCG format instead?
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 03:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
'Coop' isn't really a selling point on its own. It's gotta be a fun game first, and have interesting ways to interact with the other players.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
Ulgress posted:Also, geographic based unit placement (historically) doesn't work all that well without map/land-based effects with attacker/defender mechanisms and unit interactions based on the range of situations they can be in (e.g. attacker on empowering environment). Ulgress posted:You might want to rethink your stretch goals, as well. $25k for 5 cards (you should be giving everyone a free collectible physical card or something)? Another $25k for an extra drawing + rule and an economy you (as game devs) can dilute whenever (you'd much more easily sell this by giving everyone a permanent 5-10% discount)? Good feedback thanks, I'll pass this onto the rest of the team. Ulgress posted:I think I just had a knee-jerk reaction, for the most part, because it seems that before you truly showcased anything fantastic about the game, you'd already gone and spilled that it's going to heavily rely on IAP to support the CCG experience. The one great thing about digital gaming when it comes to CCGs is the lack of necessity for real-world-economy dependence. I touched on this above but we're fans of the LoL monetization model. Anything gameplay related you can buy with in-game currency, albeit with some grinding, like you can with IP in LoL. Vanity items will have some real money only stuff. Ulgress posted:I feel pretty positive about everyone I saw in the video, though. Thanks, they're good people. Hopefully we'll get the B-roll footage of the combat sequences up as a Kickstarter update soon. Drifter posted:I'm not going to offer an opinion on the card game, but I just want to say that it really bothers me when kickstarters have their stretch goals laid out from the very beginning. With the stretch goals we're trying to let y'all lovely people know where our heads are at in terms of future development and what we think would add the most to the game right now. Pirates were our runner up faction for first set implementation so we'd be very excited to get them in sooner rather than later. Reaching the stretch goals means more artists and developers, means more game out faster. Dr. Video Games 0031 posted:You're going to be releasing your digital CCG at probably around the same time as Scrolls. How do you plan to compete? Scrolls looks awesome and I look forward to playing it. As far as competing goes I'd like to think that there is room for our game in the comforting shadow that is a Mojang release. From a gameplay perspective we have a couple of tweaks to the strategy CCG formula that may prove interesting. One is that we use a draw and discard system more akin to deckbuilders like Ascension than CCGs like Magic. Each round you will draw your hand back up to 5 cards and cards can be discarded during the turn for varying amounts of energy. This means that you'll always have a handful of cards to play with but if you want to save a particular card form round to round you'll be paying a price in terms of lost card draw and discard energy. GrandpaPants posted:On another note, I am fairly certain the only acronym more anathemous to consumers than CCG is MMO. Both of them require a critical mass of supporters to be successful, since they inherently require a lot of people to be playing them all the time. Considering most game companies have abandoned the (physical) CCG for the inevitable failure that it is, good luck with that. Maybe you should consider the LCG format instead? If we weren't so hopelessly gleeful about this particular game we might be less inclined to make a CCG, but I think there is hope for the space yet. There is a lot we can do with the fact that we're not using physical cards. One advantage is of course that you don't need to head down to the local game store or call up your buddies to arrange a game. Another is that we don't need to convince large distributors to carry the game to stores, we can appeal directly to players. We haven't implemented our matchmaking system yet but we're hoping to build several modes, including an unranked Skirmish, ranked Tournaments, and a format akin to sealed deck where a rotating set of decks will allow players to experiment with cards they don't own while playing in an environment that is reasonably balanced. Thanks for the feedback, I, and the team appreciate it. If you have any questions or feedback about Krono I'd be happy to hear it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 05:46
|
|
|
Drifter posted:I'm not speaking for chaotic kitten in particular, but a lot of times you'll find that for many smaller devs, they may not have the ability to do a particular function justice. Maybe they would have to hire on a completely other dedicated net code guy in order to get it working, and hiring someone who knows their poo poo and can stay on to troubleshoot / write code well enough so that someone else can see what the hell they've done is pretty pricey. Yeah, The scope of the project changes drastically when you are dealing with networking. I want to reiterate what I said earlier: To us the Kickstarter is a way of gauging the market and seeing what the demand for the game is, and how much energy we should put into it. At every stretch goal there are promises being made, and we intend to not set ourselves up to break them, for everyone's sake. A lot of people want networking, so it might be worth it for us to change the price on that stretch goal and appeal to the masses, I'll be thinking about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
Orzo posted:For me, stretch goals that dramatically alter gameplay are a big turn-off. Oh, you're going to introduce a new character class or new items? That just shows that your game has no planning, no vision. Imagine Blizzard running a kickstarter (ridiculousness of that aside, just pretend) and having a 4th race as a stretch goal. The only way that could ever happen is if it was tacked on haphazardly, and in this example's case, it might even ruin the rest of the game. Why do you think a new item or a new character class is dramatically altering gameplay? Why do you think adding paladins or spaceguns or even an entirely new race is "no planning, no vision"? Do you think Blizzard sat down 10 years ago and said "ok this is what the skill trees are for each character class, they look like this, now let's go! TEN YEARS PEOPLE GET TO WORK"? There's a back and forth, ebb and flow, and a new idea, implementation, etc, may act as a new lens to review and redirect a game's "feel" within the core mechanics. Those sorts of discrete "units of gameplay" or even gameplay features are not all locked at the beginning on a good game (or any game). What a game starts as, is a collection of base mechanics and systems (to keep it in starcraft terms, we have two resources, we have air and ground units, we have unit abilities). Inside of those base mechanics, you begin to develop secondary mechanics and mechanical themes or archetypes to differentiate individual "gameplay units" like units or races (or character classes or weapon types). Do you have some example of an actual dramatic gameplay change that you feel is a bad stretch goal? The generic ones you gave seem to indicate an unfamiliarity with game development or iterative design.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:Do you have some example of an actual dramatic gameplay change that you feel is a bad stretch goal? The generic ones you gave seem to indicate an unfamiliarity with game development or iterative design.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 07:04
|
|
|
Orzo posted:Okay, to use Project Eternity as an example since someone mentioned it before, I think adding 'Crafting and Enchanting' is something that should not be a stretch goal. Just my opinion, that's the type of gameplay fundamental that I think should be decided on early, and then the rest of the entire game is built and balanced with the knowledge that there at least exists a crafting system, even if the details are still being worked out during development. During the kickstarter is before pre-production even happens - it's about as early on as you can get. Then yes, the entire game is built and balanced with the knowledge a crafting system exists - that's precisely the point of establishing it during the kickstarter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 07:11
|
|
|
It's weird that you want them to decide what their game will be like in such specific detail before they even have a budget. That's like making a movie by planning how many locations to shoot at before you know if you can afford to shoot at those locations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
ThreeStone posted:If we weren't so hopelessly gleeful about this particular game we might be less inclined to make a CCG, but I think there is hope for the space yet. There is a lot we can do with the fact that we're not using physical cards. One advantage is of course that you don't need to head down to the local game store or call up your buddies to arrange a game. Another is that we don't need to convince large distributors to carry the game to stores, we can appeal directly to players. We haven't implemented our matchmaking system yet but we're hoping to build several modes, including an unranked Skirmish, ranked Tournaments, and a format akin to sealed deck where a rotating set of decks will allow players to experiment with cards they don't own while playing in an environment that is reasonably balanced. What the hell does being "hopelessly gleeful" have to do with making the game in a format that most people absolutely despise? Why does your game NEED to be a CCG? Are there gameplay mechanics that require the game to be in a collectible format? Can your game not simply function as "a card game," rather than "a collectible card game"? It's like you looked at some random words in my post, then looked up the answer in some premade FAQ without correlating the two together, like some terribly designed Turing test. I mean this is pretty moot since the game will probably not be kickstarted, but maybe you shouldn't go for a format that makes people think "money grab" almost immediately?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 07:44
|
|
|
Orzo posted:Okay, to use Project Eternity as an example since someone mentioned it before, I think adding 'Crafting and Enchanting' is something that should not be a stretch goal. Just my opinion, that's the type of gameplay fundamental that I think should be decided on early, and then the rest of the entire game is built and balanced with the knowledge that there at least exists a crafting system, even if the details are still being worked out during development. The game wasn't well into development or even anywhere into development other than very, very early conceptualization. It's being built with crafting in mind and isn't coming out in 2013.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 07:47
|
|
|
Thorvalla got cancelled. I feel a little disappointed about this, but oh well. Maybe they'll join forces and work on the new Torment game again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 07:54
|
|
|
Maybe the wrong thread for this question, but I thought it was a kickstarter project ... I saw a game a few months ago where you manage a dungeon, I'm not sure if it was dungeon keeper like, but you could control minions (goblins) and it was still very early, I read some impressions that it worked, but wasn't very fun yet, and lacked direction. I swear it was a kickstarter project but going through the listings I cant find anything anywhere on it now. Nekro looks sort of similar but this game had much more.... programmer art look to it still. maybe it was steam greenlight? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 07:54
|
|
|
Is it this, you mean: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/brotherwise/boss-monster-the-dungeon-building-card-game ?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 08:00
|
|
Orzo posted:For me, stretch goals that dramatically alter gameplay are a big turn-off. Oh, you're going to introduce a new character class or new items? That just shows that your game has no planning, no vision. Imagine Blizzard running a kickstarter (ridiculousness of that aside, just pretend) and having a 4th race as a stretch goal. The only way that could ever happen is if it was tacked on haphazardly, and in this example's case, it might even ruin the rest of the game. What the gently caress are you talking about? Blizzard adds extra races and/or classes in all their expansions, which not all players have. That's pretty much the same poo poo.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 09:53
|
|
|
Orzo posted:For me, stretch goals that dramatically alter gameplay are a big turn-off. Oh, you're going to introduce a new character class or new items? That just shows that your game has no planning, no vision. Imagine Blizzard running a kickstarter (ridiculousness of that aside, just pretend) and having a 4th race as a stretch goal. The only way that could ever happen is if it was tacked on haphazardly, and in this example's case, it might even ruin the rest of the game. They've been foreshadowing a fourth race since the Broodwars expansion's secret mission.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 10:00
|
|
|
Adding a race is a bad example, since that's something you can do whilst still working within the framework of your original gameplay mechanics and overall scheme, it just takes a decent bit more time to balance it properly. But I get what you're saying with the idea that some people add stretch goals that would change the game fundamentally after the fundamentals should have been decided.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 10:10
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Why does your game NEED to be a CCG? My apologies Gramps, I did indeed gloss over the LCG suggestion you had made while I was responding last night. To that point you could of course release any given set for a fixed price and convert most CCGs to LCGs. However, in order to gain the large audience that CCGs benefit from, we wanted to have the lowest price possible, free in this case, to encourage people to download and play. As a player who likes LCGs better, would you value the ability to buy a "Medieval Knights" set which gave you access to all the cards for a given faction for a fixed price? As to the "money grab" point, I touched on this earlier but our the way we want to sell cards is heavily influenced by the LoL model. Anything that affects gameplay, primarily cards at this point can be acquired through gaining in-game currency gained by playing, like IP. We do of course want to be able to sell things as well so there will be a variety of real money vanity items, as well as the ability to get cards faster, for sale. We play games, we know what is hateful in free to play games, and we're trying not to do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
TychoCelchuuu posted:It's weird that you want them to decide what their game will be like in such specific detail before they even have a budget. That's like making a movie by planning how many locations to shoot at before you know if you can afford to shoot at those locations. It's my strong opinion that good games are not simply 'collections of features', and that's what a lot of stretch goals look like to me--a way to dump extra features on top of a game. Enhancing existing features, on the other hand, is a great way to spend that extra money--higher quality graphics, more music, better sound, bringing the game to a wider audience through ports, etc. Lurdiak posted:What the gently caress are you talking about? Blizzard adds extra races and/or classes in all their expansions, which not all players have. That's pretty much the same poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 16:14
|
|
|
Orzo posted:I was talking about SC and already pointed that out, settle down. But you weren't, really. You were talking about *any game funded by kickstarter* adding an additional race as a stretch goal, using blizzard as an example. Sure, it might be a bad idea in certain situations, but the fact that you have to qualify what game you're talking about proves that it's not something that applies to all games. Regardless, the stage of development at the point you reach a stretch goal is easily fluid enough to ensure that any additional feature is incorporated into the game from the ground up. It's not like people start developing the majority of their game in the time between reaching their kickstarter goal and reaching a stretch goal or something. They wait until they know how much money they're getting, then they plan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
I know you dummies are having an argument about some poo poo nobody cares about, but this was just posted in the Ouya thread and it's too good not to share.Lodin posted:Move over Ouya, there's a new player in town. They're "crowdfunding" it through their own website, so you know it's on the level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
What's with the four letter vaporware consoles these days? "We need a good name for our console." "Okay, bring in the Boggle!" "Hmmm, SHKG, JORT, GLPM, HORN" "Okay, let's leave it to voting. All for SHKG, raise hands..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
Orzo posted:To me, it's more like cutting an entire character out of your movie script because you can't afford to get an actor that you wanted. In my opinion, an artistic pursuit--whether it be movies or games--should at least have the core fundamental elements planned out. When reality comes along and you're forced to make cuts for either financial or technical reasons, you compromise while still keeping your vision as much as possible. Pre-production or not, I would like to think that the inclusion of something like a crafting system should not rely on a stretch goal. If the developers have a dream, does that dream have crafting and enchanting in it, or not? You keep saying fundamental elements and then give examples like an ancillary crafting system or a secondary character that can be justifiably cut frm a script. Features are cut all the time from games and new things are added. You have invented an ideal that simply doesn't exist. You also don't seem to understand that developing a budget is the first step in planning features -do you think indie developers make short form simple 2d games or rely heavily on procedural content because that's their artistic vision, rather than the result of them having a tiny budget?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
Chalks posted:Regardless, the stage of development at the point you reach a stretch goal is easily fluid enough to ensure that any additional feature is incorporated into the game from the ground up. quote:I know you dummies are having an argument about some poo poo nobody cares about Sigma-X posted:You keep saying fundamental elements and then give examples like an ancillary crafting system or a secondary character that can be justifiably cut frm a script. As for the second point, you're wrong, I do understand how the real world works. Technically speaking, adding 3D graphics to a game is a feature, and a lot of indie developers can't afford the cost of decent looking 3D assets--or even good 2D ones. But I thought it was obvious from the context of the discussion that we weren't talking about those types of features. Orzo fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 16:45
|
|
|
Comments disabled, oh gee, I wonder why.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
Al! posted:They're "crowdfunding" it through their own website, so you know it's on the level. You know it's legit when it includes a "built-in laser projection camera" and makes its own games. The true message of this video comes in at 3:32 when they tell you, quite clearly, "Don't give us a penny."
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
Orzo posted:Well, I addressed how I felt about this in the same post you quoted, even if you did quote a different part. There is no context to your argument because you keep using ancillary features as an example of fundamental mechanics and have no actual concrete examples of bad stretch goals. show me a game that had lovely goals instead of imagined bad goals. Nothing is ever planned to be trivial initially, it is only when re-examining a budget or scope that a feature is deemed cut worthy. It's a system of priorities. And again, poo poo like characters, classes, races, crafting systems are discrete gameplay units that are easy to cut in measurable ways and unless your game is racist classcrafter turbo, those aren't fundamental compared to your principal characters, core mechanics (movement and combat in most games)' etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:There is no context to your argument because you keep using ancillary features as an example of fundamental mechanics and have no actual concrete examples of bad stretch goals. show me a game that had lovely goals instead of imagined bad goals. Sorry, but it really reads like you're being obtuse about what the argument is. You are actually saying that classes, races, and crafting can't be major parts of a game? Just because X company has done it (arguably) successfully, does not mean every game can or should do so. Things like League of Legends adds characters all the time - that is the model and design they have for their game and it works. This will not work for every game. Indeed, the StarCraft example was meant to illustrate this point. Some games are balanced around certain sets of information and adding (or removing) new things is hard without ruining that balance. The argument is that if you have primary goal X, and then secondary goal Y, where goal Y would cause a drastic difference in gameplay, then it seems like goal X is an unfinished product since apparently they planned to go up to Y, and not including it almost assuredly means the balance is going to be out of whack. I'm not saying this happens often in Kickstarter. The projects I have followed or funded haven't done this. But I think the argument is certainly something to be aware of, as those sorts of issues come up even in AAA titles undergoing patches, and it does drastically change the flow of games when it happens. Luminous fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 17:17
|
|
|
Orzo posted:Okay, to use Project Eternity as an example ...would be bad because the only things they got was the name, what games the gameplay will be similar to and their experience to boost the faith in the project. In other words: they had nothing. The game will be built with all the stretch goals in mind right from the start because the pre-production started only after the KS ended.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 17:19
|
|
|
Luminous posted:Sorry, but it really reads like you're being obtuse about what the argument is. You are actually saying that classes, races, and crafting can't be major parts of a game? Just because X company has done it (arguably) successfully, does not mean every game can or should do so. Do you think these things are already decided before they've got their kickstarter budget? To use the incredibly terribly Starcraft analogy, yes, at the beginning of SC's development they did not know how many units or what type of units they were going to have. Thy had an idea that was refined repeatedly. You could certainly have cut one from each race early on and no one would know, because you would balance it differently. And if adding into an existing game is terrible and breaks vision (which is completely beside the actual argument presented because kickstarter games re not existing games) then I'm surprised anyone enjoyed brood war or is looking forward to heart of the swarm because those must obviously be straying from the initial vision and plan and can't be balanced because you guys said so. Balance is a continual thing, you don't do it on paper t the beginning and then stick to that. Nobody has a goddamn balanced game at the point they're kick starting development. Thus, the entire argument of adding any of the features orzo has suggested as fundamental is easy to do, provided budget, as it doesn't affect the balance of a game. And the balance of a game is not high level vision or planning. "the rockets do 11 damage" is not a fact that will ever appear in a planning or vision doc with any expectation of finality. E: and because you weren't following the whole argument, I'm saying additional classes or races, or any crafting system that is stuck into a game not called Crafter Turbo are ancillary, yes. Sigma-X fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 17:45
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:There is no context to your argument because you keep using ancillary features as an example of fundamental mechanics and have no actual concrete examples of bad stretch goals. show me a game that had lovely goals instead of imagined bad goals. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1878147873/hero-u-rogue-to-redemption/posts/350953 quote:Meeps require a lot of care. You'll have to feed this one, pet it, and generally treat it with care. If you do, you will have a loyal (though strange) companion to help you explore the catacombs. Of course, it might alert monsters to your presence just when you thought you were sneaky. On the other hand, it might distract an enemy long enough for you to get by it, set a trap, or sneak up behind it. Sigma-X posted:Nobody has a goddamn balanced game at the point they're kick starting development. Thus, the entire argument of adding any of the features orzo has suggested as fundamental is easy to do, provided budget, as it doesn't affect the balance of a game. And the balance of a game is not high level vision or planning. "the rockets do 11 damage" is not a fact that will ever appear in a planning or vision doc with any expectation of finality. Orzo fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 17:47
|
|
|
Orzo posted:Okay, here's the first example I ran into: Sure they had 3 races in mind early on. Thy didn't have number of units, though. Dawn of war didn't,company of heroes didn't have number of races in mind. Yes, I am saying a crafting system even as complex as wow's is an ancillary feature. I'm so glad that as a game player you have a lot of ideas about how development works. And yes, adding a pet to a dungeon crawler is a completely ancillary feature. I think you and I have different interpretations of what dramatic means. You seem to think it means anything tht changes the way the game plays, and I think it means something that changes the structural conceit of the game. If you want to change how a game plays, you can do that in 20 minutes with access to the rules database/table/ini. That will be "dramatic" when every weapon is now an insta mega cannon killing everything except for bob the tank. But that still wouldn't change the structural conceit of the game, and adding a pet to a dungeon crawler isn't going to either. Do you think the witch doctor is essential to diablo 3 and removing him would change that game dramatically? Because I don't, especially since I never partied with one until I rolled one myself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
I think Orzo's taking it to an unnecessary extreme, but the way some KS's treat stretch goals as gameplay snap-ins does rub me the wrong way a little. For me it's less about the artistic vision of the project and more about the fact that some of them are setting themselves up for inevitable failure. It's really easy to promise you can add a particular feature to a game for an addition 10K of funding or whatever, but there's no guarantee that the feature will be, uh, fun. I'm by no means an actual game developer, but it seems to me that lots of games go through iterative processes as the gameplay itself is developed and systems are fully fleshed out, and if there are particular pieces not working they might get dropped due to the time or expense it'll take to make them worthwhile. With a Kickstarter, a dev might feel much more beholden to the people that made the game possible and keep working on pieces that amount to gameplay dead ends, just because it sounded like a good idea months ago. I'm thinking about Xcom in particular, because Firaxis has been very open about the fact that a lot of things they tried just didn't work when it comes to fun. See this if you don't know what I'm talking about. Now, it's quite possible that everything will fall into place on the first pass and poo poo will work like it does on paper, but I think relying on that to happen is asking for trouble. It's a tough call. You want to add all sorts of shiny features to your product to attract additional funds, but what happens if you've underestimated how long / difficult it will be to get your core gameplay in order? It happens all the time with big traditionally-published titles, and it's only a matter of time before KS's start flubbing stretch goals. Again, I'm not a developer and I might be totally out of my realm of understanding. I just think that making really concrete promises about features for a game that barely has a framework together is kind of bad practice. It depends dev to dev because some will have a much better idea what it will take to implement X feature, but a lot of Kickstarters are first time devs and there's nothing stopping them from promising the sun and the moon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:Do you think the witch doctor is essential to diablo 3 and removing him would change that game dramatically? Because I don't, especially since I never partied with one until I rolled one myself. There is a huge difference between a new race in a single-player focused game or mmo like Diablo 3/Warcraft to Starcraft 2 which has gone to great lengths to balance a competitive online scene against 3 different races with different play styles and mechanics. Stop comparing apples to oranges
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:I'm so glad that as a game player you have a lot of ideas about how development works. And for the record, you don't know anything about my personal development experience, so ditch the attitude. quote:And yes, adding a pet to a dungeon crawler is a completely ancillary feature. quote:Do you think the witch doctor is essential to diablo 3 and removing him would change that game dramatically? Because I don't, especially since I never partied with one until I rolled one myself. NmareBfly posted:I think Orzo's taking it to an unnecessary extreme, but the way some KS's treat stretch goals as gameplay snap-ins does rub me the wrong way a little. Orzo fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
Blister posted:There is a huge difference between a new race in a single-player focused game or mmo like Diablo 3/Warcraft to Starcraft 2 which has gone to great lengths to balance a competitive online scene against 3 different races with different play styles and mechanics. where is the goddamn kickstarter for an rts with bonus races? This is why it is a terrible analogy. The only argument being made here with any supporting evidence or rationale is that starcraft wouldn't be the same with two races, which has nothing to do with kickstarter or even really game development processes. I totally agree that starcraft would not be starcraft as we know it with only two races. If the protoss were relegated to cutscenes during development and we never saw them as playable though, we'd be saying that SC couldn't possibly support 3 races, as it wouldn't jive with the vision. Orzo posted:I think if you have a game where dungeons are well-designed and enemies are carefully placed in certain spots to create a gameplay experience that the creators are orchestrating, then yes, having some companion that alerts enemies or sets off traps or even kills the enemy for you is 'dramatic'. They don't have a game where dungeons are well-designed and enemies are carefully placed in certain spots yet, though? So they can design around the inclusion of the meeps. This is the thing you're missing, I think. They're not adding on the stretch goal features to a game that is anywhere near complete. They haven't carefully designed dungeons yet. They are still determining scope. Sigma-X fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
Blister posted:There is a huge difference between a new race in a single-player focused game or mmo like Diablo 3/Warcraft to Starcraft 2 which has gone to great lengths to balance a competitive online scene against 3 different races with different play styles and mechanics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
Sigma-X posted:They don't have a game where dungeons are well-designed and enemies are carefully placed in certain spots yet, though? So they can design around the inclusion of the meeps. This is the thing you're missing, I think. They're not adding on the stretch goal features to a game that is anywhere near complete. They haven't carefully designed dungeons yet. They are still determining scope. Game A: The game how it would look without the Meep companion Game B: The game how it would look with the Meep companion I am not saying that they already have Game A designed and that they need to transform it into Game B. All I'm saying is that Game A and Game B look and feel very different (the aforementioned 'dramatic' difference). You disagree, that's fine. And it's the willingness of a developer to make two completely different games (again, you'll disagree with the premise that they are that different) based on a stretch goal that turns me off to it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
Haha, so it's a "b-b-but the developer's VISION!" issue? If only you knew how often and how drastically the core vision for any given great game changes for all kinds of reasons it would apparently make you weep with idealistic rage.
mutata fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Dec 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
mutata posted:If only you knew how often and how drastically the core vision for any given great game changes for all kinds of reasons it would apparently make you weep with idealistic rage. See, this is why I have an issue with the way stretch goals are sometimes presented. I think it's too early for a lot of these projects to be locking in features. I guess the only real risk is that backers start to freak out and demand refunds because it turns out that X gameplay type didn't make final release, and the resolution for that would be between the dev and the backers. Some stretches seem crazy optimistic to me is all -- but I doubt adding a bunch of qualifiers like 'For 10K more we'll TRY to implement this feature' will do a good job of pushing the total up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 19:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:01 |
|
|
ChaoticKitten posted:*giggles* I can link it for you, but I haven't manually searched through the whole thread so it may be a re-post, if so, I apologize. Oh, that's cool, I had already pledged to this. I don't get the hubbub over online... These types of games blow to play from hundreds of miles away with the bad netcode that indies usually manage, way more fun of a couch with friends/family/lovers. Also can you guys have your  argument about Blizzard in another thread, you have a whole loving subforum for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2012 20:43
|
|
