|
XboxPants posted:Speaking of their Alpha, they were supposed to upload that yesterday. And they didn't. But I don't even take that as a particularly bad sign. The guy's first response to this issue was "chill out guys I'll put up an Alpha tomorrow". Now he said: How is it reasonable? Look, people's behavior often follows patterns. This one seems to follow one as well: -Complete lack of updates -Things blow up badly, people consider lawsuits and refunds -Claims that he'll deliver Alpha the next day -Deadline passes, belated revision to some unspecified date in the future It's not like it's some guy desperately trying to deliver on his promise and just being behind. They didn't announce the alpha build before things blew up - if they had one ready to show, why not announce it or update people and tell them it's coming? The idea that "they are bad at PR" doesn't wash. When you take $170k of people's money, you should kinda keep them in the loop. That's how it works with investors and that's how it works even, at a bare minimum, with bosses. The whole thing smacks of like when a college kid procrastinates on his term paper and is full excuses to buy a bit of time while he desperately tries to finish it. There's a really good thread on Neogaf with a summary of why this whole thing is shady as hell, I'd be happy to repost the salient parts if people are ok with it.
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
Here's the thread from Neogaf for reference: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=503862 and here's the main points of people concerned about it: quote:1) The game "required" $100,000 to complete. It raised $170,000. Interviews have suggested they're looking for external funding, meaning they materially and significantly underestimated the cost of the game. And here was a response to the development continues update post: quote:- No update on budget/funding (Note: He admitted to Kotaku they're broke) And here's the last post I personally consider very interesting: quote:The guy's previously failed business venture was selling Tactical Corsets. They took a bunch of orders, never delivered any merchandise, and then promptly shut down the website. Their Facebook TimeLine is pretty hilarious. The dude just spams non-stop about how his Code Hero Kickstarter needs support. He even has the balls to say "I will resume making Tactical Corsets once Code Hero launches." Here's the URL for the Tactical Corsets facebook to see the timeline for yourselfhttp://www.facebook.com/pages/Tactical-Corsets/75721587713?fref=ts And here's a pic of said Tactical Corsets  It just smells to high heaven from my perspective, and the fact that the guy did this same stunt once before makes it a bit worse to me as well. All of the above is simply people assembling what happened at what points and the guy's prior history as well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
nessin posted:I cancelled my order because I felt it was a terribly way of doing things (as you pointed, the hope for greater rewards and ending up having to scramble with Plan B when that fails), but you're expecting too much out of anyone if you'd come out and call it "basically lying". You can argue he wasn't all that smart about the Kickstarter, but even if he expected something different about the Kickstarter he didn't lie about the project. Unless you're taking the stance that they have no intention of making the game even if it gets funded since they didn't meet their internal expectations. At the end of the day, with Kickstarter, you're purchasing product(s) in advance, not investing in a company. I understand that Kickstarter is crowdfunding but there's a pretty good standard to go by which is what happens when you ask for investment in your company in the real world:
This is true whether you are filing to go IPO or simply asking for private investment from either an investment company or a specific investor. You know those end of year stock filings where Nvidia, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, etc disclose everything that could pretty much destroy their business? That's basically what you're expected to do when you ask for money. Had he gone with any real funding source other than Kickstarter, Chris would have had to come out with "Wellll we're about a week away from turning the lights off" as that's a major material disclosure. Failing to disclose that, and having the other party figure it out themselves, would most likely end the relationship and result in them pulling out. Worst case it could result in a lawsuit against you. It's a big deal, and while Kickstarter members are not investors, it sure seems to me that some form of due diligence is going to be needed as part of this funding process because of the sheer number of people that are pulling shady crap like the above. Saying nothing at all about their imminent running out of funds - not a peep - while asking for funding is bullshit and Chris has been in the games business for a long time so he knows better. And acting like it's an unreasonable standard to hold him to is bizarre to me and I don't quite agree with it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2013 18:46
|
|
|
quote:In his prepared statement, Kick acknowledged that the project had gone awry. “Maybe we lost our focus,” he wrote. “The vision began to change. We moved from a Remaster to a completely new game. We ... strayed from the core concepts of the original title. "Please fund our $1.3 million remake of System Shock!" *gets the money* "Ok making the game that you wanted made would be boring and maybe not what we're in the mood for, we'll just make something else, thanks for the cash." quote:He added, “Ultimately the responsibility for the decisions rests with me. As the CEO and founder of Nightdive Studios ... I let things get out of control. I can tell you that I did it for all the right reasons, that I was totally committed to making a great game, but it has become clear to me that we took the wrong path, that we turned our backs on the very people who made this possible, our Kickstarter backers.” Cool guy that pissed away 1.3 million claiming he was going to remake something that already exists but deciding "nah" once he got the cash 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 21:00
|
|
|
The best time to do a major pivot is the moment you close funding for the thing you said you were going to do and it's now time to deliver, and that's really the ideal time to decide that's not what you really wanted to make in the first place, and then not tell anyone about this change of direction until the money runs out and then you post "welp"
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2018 21:15
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:the aliens were dumb. the aliens were dumb, the twist ending is awful, the respawns on map loads were lame and gameplay got old about halfway through. Nightmare was a huge letdown.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2018 14:59
|
|
|
That was a great post mortem. The guy who took $200k and delivered nothing felt he made all the right decisions, had the right team, it's just that making games and scoping things is hard. Also he erred in not taking more of people's money. And overpaid for accountants that didn't actually help him avoid unnecessary taxes, but still advises people to spend big on lawyers and accountants. The switch from Unity to UE4 that took ~6 months, that was the right call. Also he should have had a CEO and a CTO and a COO or something (on a $200k budget). Why? Because he's a beta male - by the way, that's on his first slide in the presentation. He literally says that. Anyway, those are the takeaways he got from the experience.
Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Apr 19, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2018 05:02
|
|
|
I can't really picture the way a meeting goes from the moment the word "masturbation" gets dropped *exec sighs, shifts in chair* One more: In case you didn't know, not to presume that you'd be ignorant about the masturbating superheroine
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
I am ok with stuff changing once a campaign gets started and I know it's normal. The amount of freedom that indie developers have to do a kickstarter campaign under one set of promises (scope, timeline, deliverables) and then when they get a bunch of people's money suddenly decide that no, actually, that money was for something else entirely, but don't worry it's the same thing you backed, is really weird. Like, why do they have this amount of lattitude? If you took a publisher's money and then were like "yaknow what we're actually going to give you the code a year later because we want to make the game bigger" you get sued, not to mention they probably get most of the profits in the first place. But when kickstarting? Ah do whatever, it's fine. Cool recent examples: System Shock remake that decides it's going to massively expand scope, then it turns out the kickstarter was just to get funding, then it turns out none of that will happen Other examples that crack me up: when people sell a fancy $1k or $5k or $10k reward tier with like 1 item available, and someone buys it thinking they'll get to spend the day hanging with the dev team, and then they change the number of rewards to like 4 or 5 in the tier which means the experience will be totally different. No of course you don't get your money back, even if you bought it because it would be just you and the dev team for a few hours.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:because they have the money and dont have to deliver anything???? It's quite odd how every single professional publishing contract makes sure 50 different ways this isn't how it goes but Kickstarter is 100% AOK with this being how it goes I feel like maybe, maybe, kickstarter is really loving up the long term health of their platform and the credibility of their drives by allowing this sort of poo poo, on the other hand, they get their 10% so gently caress you.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2018 01:43
|
|
|
ItBreathes posted:Yeah, but it's not like anyone who's kick-starting anything can afford the lawyers needed to defend against all the claimants. It would mean the result of a failed Kickstarter is bankruptcy, which wouldn't be too good for their platform either. I disagree - sorry. A clause that says "You can't declare after a year of nothing that you're swapping engines or rebooting the game" is actually a good thing, or that materially changing features or timelines right after closing the kickstarter, or using the kickstarter to fund initial development to announce that you really did all this to get a publisher, should mean that you also give the money back or cancel the project and owe all the remaining funds as refunds. There's no one making these devs do these totally ridiculous things, they just choose to do it, because they can. Publisher contracts are really explicit in terms of milestones and payments and guess what, you can't pull this kind of crap. It's very convenient that Kickstarter has 0 accountability or requirements that encourage people to stick to what they promised after they receive the funds, and it goes contrary to just about every single industry deal - music, movies, games, you name it. It's a hilarious joke, imo.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2018 02:39
|
|
|
In general I find myself less and less into kickstarting given that it turned into a plundering fans type of funding system. No I'm not talking equity or any nonsense, just, if there was a kickstarter site that used milestones or forced the devs to give regular updates and they only get paid if they actually deliver, I'd be much more interested. Also they shouldn't be able to announce a mystery publisher that emerged right after the campaign, or that the campaign was really for publishers. Right now kickstarting is signing up to be the world's dumbest publisher. You don't own the rights, you have no say, it's not even exclusive. We're years past the idea of the backers getting any profits... which is the main reason publishers publish to begin with. It's literally a "lol just make poo poo up get idiots to fund it haha" system.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:Source your quotes. This is a poor response to someone expressing an opinion you dislike, maybe you can kickstart a project to develop it further. Like seriously dude, that was 1 minute later getting all  HOW DARE YOU
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
StrixNebulosa posted:Dude you haven't said anything new or groundbreaking here. Just one old take, and whatever. Hmm yeah it's not like there were a bunch of recent kickstarter updates in this very thread that went poorly  I didn't say it to express anything groundbreaking, I was just sort of tossing that out given the recent developments kickstarting seems to be continuing the trend of lovely projects, less funding, less enthusiasm. It's not a positive trend. I'd like to see Starflight get more funding but I don't think people fund with the same enthusiasm that they used to after all the recent poo poo. 2 years ago I would have funded starflight 3, just like I did Battletech. Now? Good luck to them with whatever publisher they announce right after the campaign. Sorry if that's an old take but it seems to continue to be relevant  Seems like the occasional chiming in could coexist with tweets from kickstarters and updates about how people hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
StrixNebulosa posted:That's more fair and I don't disagree. However do contrast with success stories (that I haven't posted about so much) like Boyfriend Dungeon or the Avernum guy's new rpg. We're not getting blockbuster megahits on Kickstarter, and the scammers/idiots are still out there, but it sounded like you were ready to declare it failed when it's not. I understand. I was just tossing out my dismay that crowdfunding seems to be on a downslope year after year. I'd like to see crowdfunding companies find a formula that restores funders confidence in projects and get the ecosystem going again like in the early days of indiegogo, kickstarter, and all that jazz. It was neat reading about some cool project or something unexpected every few months. I think the first "we'll be totally chill, no milestones or deliverables" companies worked for a while, and it may be worth revisiting now that a few years have gone by. Or it may be that crowdfunding is now the mail order of products. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
Lemon-Lime posted:I can't believe this still has to be laid out in 2018, but: Kickstarter isn't a platform for investing in games, or a store. It is and always has been a platform for donating money to things that you want to see happen, with a lot of those projects going "you'll get one of [thing] when we're done!" as an incentive. People have literally been saying "it's not a store or an investment platform" since the dawn of the site. Yeah dude, we get it, Kickstarter is a thing where you take your money in the worst possible deal and hope and hope and hope that out of the 10 you fund, one won't be a scam. And I get that people defend it as the only way to do it. But it's clearly not working. quote:Those projects are often run by amateurs who have a good idea but don't have the means of securi[ng traditional sources of funding, or the structures and scale in place to necessarily guarantee that the work will make it to completion, which means sometimes you donate money to a project that ends up not delivering on its promises. This has always been a basic part and parcel of the risks that you accept when pledging to a crowdfunding campaign. Okay I'm throwing out an analogy, hold on to your butt Regular brain: I am going to invest in a videogame and I get to benefit financially if it does well, for I know what I am doing and operate like every publisher Galaxy brain: I am going to give amateurs money with no stipulations whatsoever and I'm saying a new tier like Giant brain can exist, which says: "I am not an investor nor do I exert control but I do expect this person to hit certain basic milestones for them to keep getting monkey chunks" and that I would fund games on this platform with some form of a contract / deliverables / timetable instead of just drop off lump sum and HOPE
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2018 19:22
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Do you think real investors deal with the kind of amounts KS backers usually give? Some investors sign onto funding rounds at 10-20k which is on the upper end of some KS tiers, but yeah absolutely. Especially at seed stage. Are you familiar with how venture funding rounds get subscribed? Again, On a spectrum of: Investor --------------------------------------------- Giving money to hobbyists with absolutely no milestones or deliverables I'd like something inbetween, which seems to really offend people? Of course you wouldn't be compelled to use it so... Is the argument that the existing kickstarter models cover all possible implementations of crowdfunding or that they're actually the best way of doing it? What exactly are you guys claiming here?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
Skyscraper posted:I think it'd be real hard to apportion out each $1 of a $15 pledge in 15 milestones for a game. That'd be a pain to give out that money, and a pain to get the exact amount back into the hands of backers. But, it seems like it'd be possible to do better than the current system, wherein there is no penalty for failing to deliver, and backers never get anything back ever. I don't think its a requirement to implement it that way. The way I pictured it, when the campaign ends the money goes into a pool, the pool has tiers / checkpoints / milestones much like for funding tiers, certain percentages of the pool get released when milestones get hit.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:My argument is that what you're asking for won't work because the whole idea is to make crowdfunding easy and simple and what you want will force people to draft and sign contracts for each project, all so they can give someone 15 bucks and get a game/comic/whatever out of it. Great, and I'd like to see someone try it anyway, given that crowdfunding seems to be generating less and less enthusiasm over the very real issue that people are completely failing to deliver. Terrible teams, ridiculous projects, absolutely no deadlines or milestones. The project goes dark for a year or 1.5 years then gets announced to be unsalvageable. There has got to be some other way to do crowdfunding than that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:I ask again, who evaluates if a milestone has been credibly hit? What liability do they carry? Yeah you're right, nobody would ever figure out how to determine if milestones have been hit, or how to be accountable to multiple parties. At some point, it would be fascinating to really dive into just how much of a parallel reality crowdfunding exists in from all other business funding sources. If you want to sign up for even simple stuff like a startup incubator you can expect to give up 5-10% of your equity. You can also expect that either as part of that funding, or in the seed round, your investors will expect and demand a board seat. Even as minority investors they are completely protected and prevent you from doing things like selling to whoever you feel like. And by having a board seat, they get active decision making control over your company. Even taking a loan from like a silicon valley bank requires giving up equity. Angel investing requires giving up equity and board seats. Crowdfunding? Absolutely nothing, no accountability or even the simplest most basic enforcement. You cannot credibly be claiming that these problems are impossible to solve. Whether implementing a pseudo board like structure where the backers nominate representatives to verify milestones, or some third party that does milestone verification neutrally like an escrow service, or making the KS backers some form of shareholders that can vote on whether a milestone has been hit, some method of accountability or milestone checking could be implemented. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Sep 6, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Skyscraper posted:I'd be OK with a dev crowdsourcing the administration of this, you as a backer could vote for "does this feature implemented look like this other feature promised" or maybe "has there been evidence of progress in the last six months" These are both really great ideas!! I especially like the "if your campaign fails the art and assets go to the backers / community" because again, that's how it works with failed funding. The investors get whatever value is left in the remaining assets.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:If I make a video game project and a sizable group of Hardcore Gamers back it, then later I dare introduce a positively-portrayed female/minority/nonbinary character or the ability to lower the difficulty and they get mad and decide to refuse to acknowledge when I reach any further milestones, what can I do about it? I think this is a great example of something that is kinda skeevy in the current system. If you pitch your game as an exploration of gender and get that community to back it, then suddenly reboot it as a hardcore FPS about some horrific theme, presumably those backers would be unhappy. And the same in reverse. If you pitched your game as a backyard wrestling sim and turn it into a gardening sim, I think that having some consistency with the actual... thing you pitched... to get funded... seems reasonable. So if your soft reboot alienates the original crowd to the point that they no longer release funds, that seems like a preferred outcome to the current "ah, do whatever you want" system.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Have you ever taken a board seat as an angel? I don’t think it’s very common at all. None of the syndicates I’ve been in have taken them, which is appropriate given the small amount of ownership involved in angel investments. Seed stage investment will take a single board seat of 3, meaning no inherent veto power, and bring-along clauses don’t let the minority investor block a sale. That kind of power is not part of modern seed investing in the Western world. Maybe it was back when people subscribed to $20K seed rounds in something like 1985. This seems out of scope for the Kickstarter thread, I think it's productive to keep things confined to "Compared to pretty much any form of traditional business funding, crowdfunding favors the business / founder to an absolutely ridiculous degree, with basically none of the protections afforded to traditional investors." Sure, moving the slider towards the middle may have been considered unimaginable a few years ago. Given how crowdfunding has lost its luster recently and people simply aren't as enthusiastic as they were, I think it's worth trying to tackle it at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
I hope you're ready for the M Night Shyamalan twist where Stardock gets announced as the publisher 1 day after the funding campaign ends
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2018 00:34
|
|
|
Larian shows you can make those games fun and interesting and well written, even by a small / indie team. Obsidian's recent games like Tyranny and path of exile 1 were absolutely boring / amateurish in comparison. I have no idea what particular structural issues they're wrestling with, but given their inability to produce content rather than excuses, I can't imagine it will be a big loss if they end up running out of cash. It gels real well with what Avellone wrote and yet people dismiss it because it was posted on rpgcodex I don't feel bad for Obsidian they're just another semi-failed company on life support churning out mediocre half baked titles cashing in on stuff their fans want to see but they can't really deliver. They're not the first, or the only one, in that position. It just seems like a rough way to pay bills.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
lmao the acronym threw me, I wrote path of exile and was thinking pillars of eternity, sorry about that one
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:I know literally nothing about this game, but this review makes me feel like buying it. In the proud goon tradition there's 13 reviews for the game, out of which exactly 1 person on steam had a dumb opinion, and that guy naturally posted that one with no context because making folks like you fall for it is funny, apparently.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:Nah. Obviously, I know that this is not a representative review. Right, and that's why that guy posts that misleading stuff in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2018 17:33
|
|
|
cant cook creole bream posted:Wait, are you implying that the goon who took that screenshot is trying to convince me to buy that game, or do you think that review is a false flag operation? Just that there's a cycle of check out new game -> see what the reviews are -> skim 20 boring ones -> find one that's  -> post exactly that one -> watch the response
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
I mean it's totally cool if you didn't like it and still don't. There are going to be games that don't resonate with you. For me, the recent Obsidian stuff (Pillars of Eternity, I got it this time, wooo) feels so warmed over, uninspired, mediocre Baldur's Gate clone that I can't stomach it. The pointless writing, the huge blocks of text with wiki links, the bizarre narrative and overwrought characters. I really disliked the release combat system and I know they may have updated it, but the combat was both joyless and boring. D:OS2 straight up reminds me of Ultima 7 / Ultima 7: SI. There's tons of obejcts to interact with in the world. You can set up traps, environmental effects, and have neat little strategic effects in combat. Sure that stuff gets old halfway through but you at least get to enjoy it for the first half. PoE / Tyranny's combat felt joyless and boring from the very start, to me. I guess what I'm trying to say is finding a studio that can make working spiritual sequels to the ultima games with all the crap and exploration and stealing and putting poo poo on people's heads and setting up cannons to fire at people so you can kill NPCs without consequence - that's all very fun for me. I'm glad Larian is out there making CRPGs and games that resonate with my tastes.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
Mr Underhill posted:In cases like this, I am really wondering whether guys like these are a) sociopaths and they really see nothing wrong with what they are doing b) narcissistic, feeling like the world just owes them 100k they can just blow on anything and then return asking for more to make something else, c) a combination of the previous two or d) just really financially and socially inept enough to burn through what is a LOT of other people's money and not realize maybe before you start pitching some other poo poo you should apologize for years of radio silence and severe funds mismanagement. This seems to be the time for "Reflecting on why these things completely implode" so, I'll go back once again to the topic I brought up earlier. I know it's fun to hate on evil capitalists, and I do, I don't like dealing with businessmen for any kind of funding. Here's the thing. When you ask for people's money they make you jump through hoop after hoop after hoop. Milestones, deadlines, targets, deliverables, funding rounds that only get you to the next round. Why? Because there's a lot of people that think they can deliver, but can't. Or once things go sideways, the rationalizations start. The hoops suck. They steal your equity and company and put you on a leash and a horrific timer. But they ALSO protect the investors and their money by keeping your rear end busy and at the first sign of trouble funding gets pulled and you crater. I'm not arguing that they're a good thing. But there should be a way to have constructive hoops for crowdfunded projects, instead of none whatsoever. With Kickstarter you throw a bunch of money and hope into a box and wait. There is no funding mechanism that works that way. It actually encourages the creator to go into the spiral of "Get really busy and not update for a while, but just wait until they see the progress" -> 6 months later "Oh poo poo I hit some kind of roadblock but I think I can work around it, I don't want to bum out the backers, I'll u pdate them when it's fixed" -> 6 months later "okay that didn't work and I'm out of money and everything failed I guess I'll tell the backers" which is a joke. The idea of milestones and accountability is not that it's simply an evil form of control because KKKAPITALISM but also because really long, complex, multi stage projects are filled with problems / setbacks and having accountability and feedback is actually important to these projects. It forces creators to make hard decisions, it forces them to deal with problems while they are still salvageable instead of when the project is dead. And that's why it has bummed me out, and continued to bum me out, that Kickstarter's model is "Here's a truck full of money, good luck, lol" which is not how any single form of creative funding works in this whole loving planet, for a reason.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
So Fangz, is it that you cannot conceptualize his criticism without concrete examples? or are you just going to provide counterexamples to the point he's making while still pretending you can't grasp it? Some JRPGs have endless trash fights that can't be turned off and don't serve a purpose. It really is a thing to varying degrees in various games, and it genuinely seems weird to pretend it doesn't exist. Are you claiming they don't? And that people need to convince you? Lol dude come on.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2018 19:39
|
|
|
multijoe posted:lmao if you'd be paying any attention at all you'd have known both those games are famous for their complex character building and intricate combat systems. maybe try playing a jRPG made this century before slagging off the entire genre lol how dare he!! the entire genre!! this is 100% a thing in JRPGs, most recently i played Tales of Zestiria and it had tons of trash fights that I didn't enjoy to the point that I stopped playing, and then I tried legend of heroes: trails in the sky and guess what. The trash fights in THAT also bored me. I don't have time for hours of pointless combat in these games to get to the bland story and it's a real criticism. At some point it feels like some dude being like "yeah JRPGs have tons of trash fights that are boring" shouldn't require a 30 page defense in the kickstarter thread, maybe you guys can just disagree or something
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
MMF Freeway posted:This argument is a trash fight You could say the kickstarter thread... got hammered.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I mainly asked for concrete examples because it's not terribly interesting arguing with a subjective concept. If you want to say 'the fights in Tales of Zestiria are IMO pretty bad and just waste my time, and the stuff the designers did to mitigate that (like allowing you to choose difficulty midgame) are insufficient', then that's fine. But it's another thing to define 'trash fights' as *by definition* fights that are without purpose, and then dare other people to defend them as a 'genre convention'. The existence of filler content in games and that being different than content that is crafted for its gameplay shouldn't be a distinction we're forced to establish before it's recognized. It's not even subjective. Stuff like the endless fetch quests in Mass Effect Andromeda or Dragon Age Inquisition? Filler. Many of the open world activities in Far Cry? Filler. Same hunt content, recycled from game to game, but with different rewards. Same for exploring towers and clearing camps. And many RPGs also have filler content, where content is reused and yeah you gotta collect 10 bear asses and guess what, that's filler. The Assassins Creed games, both Origins and Odyssey require you to do tons of sidequests so that you keep leveling with the main quest missions. If you don't keep up and fall more than like 2-3 levels behind you can't harm enemies anymore. That makes it go from content you can choose to enjoy to content you must grind through to progress the game. Trash fights as in color swapped identical enemies that offer similar mechanics and aren't really challenges you can lose, just fights to sit through for XP or gold, are what people are talking about. The fights where your party is not in danger of dying and you aren't doing them because they're interesting, you're doing them to farm up money for a sword or to get a level or unlock a skill. Those are prevalent in JRPGs and are typically the primary means of progression for your characters. Whether you like that style of content in games is certainly subjective, whether it exists and whether some people perceive it to be filler content doesn't seem to be in dispute though.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
I think the logic is also like "oh man now that I have the money sitting down and doing the dev work is pretty tough good thing I'm so busy being here for two weeks and another one for two weeks and then its time for GDC" sure its cool for people to hustle, it is annoying when people raise funds on KS to do dev work and then promptly spend it not doing dev work and going to cons and trying to raise more funds / interest
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
Hav posted:FAQ These are people asking for other people's money so maybe, the thing they should not aspire to be, is such a lazy scrub that they can't even clear that bar
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2018 16:36
|
|
|
SFB is one of my favorite combat systems and I'd chip in $100 for a kickstarted PC version, but then it would probably end up like that battletech game where after the crowdfunding finishes they announce a publisher and that they had no intention of implementing the TT mechanics, so yeah, the wait continues. Scatter Pack shuttles and wild weasels and fighters and hellbores and PPDs
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 02:30
|
|
|
Posting "i'd like to back a Battletech game that implements the tabletop game" is apparently a very interesting take because 6 people came to warn people off from engaging in this heresy. Which is pretty incredible, to me. So yeah, it would be cool to kickstart a btech game that implements the TT rules or a SFB game that implements the tabletop mechanics.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 11:24 |
|
|
Q_res posted:FYI, it's the part where you keep lying about them pulling a bait-and-switch despite being repeatedly proven wrong that people take issue with. It's not terribly complicated, even you should be able to grasp this one. I had certainly hoped from what they posted the finish product would be more btech like, sadly it wasn't. Here's the thing though - HBS Btech exists, you like it + play it + enjoy it and that's great! That's more people playing Btech, which is cool. For people that like tabletop systems, and that's what this discussion in this thread is relating to kickstarting, there still isn't a Btech game that is just the tabletop. And if there were a kickstarter project, nothing stops a dev from making a vague statement like what was posted, and then implementing whatever mechanics they feel like. Much like nothing stops them from grabbing a publisher later, not a fan of either. Ham Sandwiches fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2019 20:21
|
|