My fwiw kickstarter economic analysis regarding the rift between the traditionalists and evolutionists

[maggotheart]

I've played and enjoyed all sorts of games, from ancient to brand new but I think this game was pitched to a certain audience - those who enjoyed Baldurs, Planescape, Icewind Dale and other similar types of games that don't get made anymore. It is those fans and that style that should be catered to and emphasized IMO. Making the game with more 'modern' elements with the motivation of increasing sales seems wrong - after all, the game will be fully pre-funded by fans who were pitched a 'classic' style game. If they wanted to make a 'modern' style RPG, I doubt they would have had such an issue finding a publisher to work with to do that.

 

I'm not sure that there actually is a huge faction wanting something more modern, but the idea of it makes me feel a little upset when there are already so many games like that out there - let me have my niche classic RPG, and if you want something more modern, go play one of the many publisher model RPGs that are available today. I'm not saying that the game must be a rigid BG clone, but the clear focus should be for an old-school classic RPG.

 

I'm also backing Wasteland 2, and Brian Fargo quite bluntly and clearly stated that he is making a classic, old school type of game and he doesn't care to attract a younger crowd who might not be into that or might want more modern elements. Those people are already being served, the classic niche is not, and he intends to serve the classic niche with that game. Since the pitch for a classic niche game has been made for PE I would hope the devs on this project would take the same direction.

[Tale]

This all or nothing, one or the other, everything in absolutes mentality... I don't want to say it "worries" me, but it is definitely disappointing to see people espouse.

 

Dragon Age 1 and 2 have their good points and bad parts. In the overall evaluation, the bad may outweight the good, especially true for Dragon Age 2. But they are still a sum of parts. They weren't just cooldowns, or just romances, they weren't marked solely by the lack of vancian casting and 8 hour rest periods. And not all who favor maybe one element inherently favor the rest. Not all paths lead straight to Dragon Age. Why are we even talking about Dragon Age in the first place?

 

The good things of classic RPGs, notably the Infinity Engine games, weren't some precarious construction perfectly balanced on a cliff's edge, so close to total ruination it would topple if one single thing had been changed. They weren't even a unified whole. There were romances and multiplayer in some of the titles. This notion that any deviation from specific commonalities, specified almost entirely by pet features of the individual and not honest system appraisal, would inevitably lead to next-gen (a console concept, nearly irrelevant in the PC space) control schemes and romances is so senseless that I feel I have been lessened for my exposure to the idea.

[metiman]

Truces are boring. War is hell, but it's all we've got. I'm not sure you are one of my true enemies anyway and it's not important enough to me at the moment to go through your previous posts to find out. If you are not in favor of cooldowns, insta-rest, or other DA:O, Oblivion or other NextGen game mechanics then I don't consider you any kind of real enemy regardless of our disagreements in other areas. As far as said adventuring party I would nominate Vince Weller as the party leader. Other than that I dunno.

[JediMB]

I like video games. Also swords.

 

I refuse classification, and I'm terrible at picking favorites.

 

But for whatever it's worth, my current pledge is $110, although I'm unsure if this poor student an actually afford that. Had I a steady income, I'd definitely go for one of the $1000 backer levels. Designing an NPC or a high-level item for an Obsidian game would be bleeping awesome.

[nikolokolus]

I've certainly lamented the direction the games industry has taken in the last 10 years, but knowing the economics, and how much the console side of the equation drives companies to produce bigger and shinier games at greater and greater expense, I can certainly understand why all niche gaming markets have suffered.

 

Fact is my nephews would rather play Call of Duty because it looks cool, it's easy to play, and it pumps them full of endorphins when they play it. I tried to introduce them to some of the CRPGs I played and loved back in the day, but they hated it, because it was "slow and boring" and it was "too hard." They also don't read for fun ... very few it seems do anymore.

 

What am I getting at? I'm not sure, except to say that times change, tastes change; people are more distracted than ever and seem to have more choices for entertainment than ever and finding people who want to think hard, read a lot and use a little bit of imagination while playing a game is harder and harder to find. But saying that our little niche needs to become even more hardcore and more "pure" for it to survive isn't the answer.

 

If people want what's left of the RPG market to stay alive and have developers, beyond guys in their basement coding the next great rogue-like, then there has to be at least some sense of inclusiveness and a little bit of adaptability/innovation ... not necessarily the way companies like Bioware have approached it (man, I really don't like their games lately) but it can't just be the Codex handing out purity laws and branding anybody who doesn't 100% agree with them as heretics or sellouts.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Completely agree. In fact, I'd like to see some 'old-skool' lite games specifically designed to introduce the younger gamers who might like this sort of thing to the genre.

 

Diablo shows that fantasy is popular, you need to create that feel but with a story and interactivity then build on it. Like back in the day we all started on basic D&D. Then we'd move up in the world.

[NerdBoner]

Metiman... I have a confession. Tears are pricking my eyes, the flush of shame on my cheeks. You see I *liked* parts of the first Dragon Age game. No, not the omnisexual diaper-sex or Ren Fayre dialogue. No, after many years of barren nothingness I just sought solace in the arms of the first party-based CRPG that walked into the room.

hahaha this is what happened to me but he calls me a filthy BioWarian because if i played DA:O it must mean I like the cooldown system...which is really what this whole factions nonsense boils down to in his head: Fancy-man Vancian magic system versus the cooldown crap.

[MReed]

Interesting discussion -- I agree with the sentiment in the original post, but also agree that it over simplifies things. I'd put it this way:

 

There are two groups participating on this forum:

 

1) "Game oriented contributors": People who want a good game made by Obsidian / specific developers. The specific feature set of the game is mostly irrelevant to this group.

2) "Feature oriented contributors": People who are interested in a specific set of features. This group of contributors believe that having features "A", "B", and "C" (and not having features "D", and "E") is by itself the goal of this project.

 

Members of group #1 are generally:

• More likely to have primarily determined their contribution level by the rewards associated with that tier, and are only likely to increase their donation amount if doing so gets them a new award.
  
• They are also more likely to view recent Bioware games in a favorable light.
  
• They are most likely to support innovation on Obsidian's part favorably ("They know what they are doing")
  
• They are most likely to support adding "options" to the game in an effort to maximize the commercial success of the game, especially as stretch goals.
  
• They believe the whole point of the effort is to make a game that sells lots of copies (e.g. to non-kickstarter contributors). This will enable Obsidian to make other games, hopefully without having to go through Kickstarter to do so.
  

Member of group #2 are generally:

• Likely to have donated based on what they can afford, without regard to the awards associated with the tier, and are only likely to increase their contribution if a new feature is announced (or, more commonly, if a specific feature is excluded).
  
• Likely to have hated the recent Bioware games (in general, to have a very narrow definition of what "RPG" means).
  
• Violently oppose deviations from the Infinity Engine feature set.
  
• Oppose adding stretch goals that add "options", especially if those options would tend to broaden the audience of the game.
  
• They believe that simply completing the game and sending it to the backers is enough to make the game successful, even if it never sells a single retail copy. While they likely want a sequel, they believe that this effort should also be funded via kickstarter.
  

Group #1 far outnumbers group #2, and members of group #2 acutely aware of this fact. This is one of the reasons that they oppose any effort to broaden the appeal of the game -- they are already in the minority, and bringing on new gamers will only make the situation worse.

 

I'm part of #2, as is the OP. Not unsurprisingly, most of the posters in this thread are part of #1 (as they make up most of the posters on this message board).

[Monte Carlo]

I have to disagree MReed, although your post is salient I think many of us could cherry pick between the attributes you list.

 

I'm, honestly, sort of in the middle with a strong Group Two bias. Which means that the binary distinction is, frankly, bunk.

[NerdBoner]

Interesting discussion -- I agree with the sentiment in the original post, but also agree that it over simplifies things. I'd put it this way:

 

There are two groups participating on this forum:

 

1) "Game oriented contributors": People who want a good game made by Obsidian / specific developers. The specific feature set of the game is mostly irrelevant to this group.

2) "Feature oriented contributors": People who are interested in a specific set of features. This group of contributors believe that having features "A", "B", and "C" (and not having features "D", and "E") is by itself the goal of this project.

 

Members of group #1 are generally:

• More likely to have primarily determined their contribution level by the rewards associated with that tier, and are only likely to increase their donation amount if doing so gets them a new award.
  
• They are also more likely to view recent Bioware games in a favorable light.
  
• They are most likely to support innovation on Obsidian's part favorably ("They know what they are doing")
  
• They are most likely to support adding "options" to the game in an effort to maximize the commercial success of the game, especially as stretch goals.
  
• They believe the whole point of the effort is to make a game that sells lots of copies (e.g. to non-kickstarter contributors). This will enable Obsidian to make other games, hopefully without having to go through Kickstarter to do so.
  

Member of group #2 are generally:

• Likely to have donated based on what they can afford, without regard to the awards associated with the tier, and are only likely to increase their contribution if a new feature is announced (or, more commonly, if a specific feature is excluded).
  
• Likely to have hated the recent Bioware games (in general, to have a very narrow definition of what "RPG" means).
  
• Violently oppose deviations from the Infinity Engine feature set.
  
• Oppose adding stretch goals that add "options", especially if those options would tend to broaden the audience of the game.
  
• They believe that simply completing the game and sending it to the backers is enough to make the game successful, even if it never sells a single retail copy. While they likely want a sequel, they believe that this effort should also be funded via kickstarter.
  

Group #1 far outnumbers group #2, and members of group #2 acutely aware of this fact. This is one of the reasons that they oppose any effort to broaden the appeal of the game -- they are already in the minority, and bringing on new gamers will only make the situation worse.

 

I'm part of #2, as is the OP. Not unsurprisingly, most of the posters in this thread are part of #1 (as they make up most of the posters on this message board).

 

ah the old Jedi vs Sith debate....both sides never realizing they are completely insane, hopeless and deadlocked in an un-winnable battle.

 

Meanwhile, us Greysider's are living it up, sipping on tiny umbrella drinks and experimenting with different play styles while the other 2 groups destroy the galaxy.

Edited October 5, 2012 by NerdBoner

[Osvir]

There are obviously two factions here. I'm not sure what to call them, but I'll try the Traditionalists (or Conservatives or Codexians) and the New-Is-Better (or Biowarians). Whatever you call them I was thinking that the economics of pledges are different between the two groups.

 

What about the Innovatarians?

Edited October 5, 2012 by Osvir

[J.E. Sawyer]

I still don't know what direction Obsidian even wants to take the combat. A more next-gen, "evolved", modern sort of system with modern combat dynamics, or something quite close to BG2/IWD/PS:T.

Close to BG2/IWD.

[Uomoz]

I still don't know what direction Obsidian even wants to take the combat. A more next-gen, "evolved", modern sort of system with modern combat dynamics, or something quite close to BG2/IWD/PS:T.

Close to BG2/IWD.

 

If it wasn't clear enough already...

[eimatshya]

If you enjoyed DA2 it puts you squarely in the "should be culled to prevent breading" group.

 

I liked DA 2. I actually liked it better than DA:O. Come at me bro

 

I'm a little curious, it seems anyone who professes a liking to the Dragon Age series at all gets automatically put into the Bioware 'faction'?

 

Why would that not be the case? Dragon Age seems to be a kind of pivot point around here. If you liked it then you tend to like more modern game mechanics (Yes, I know there are going to be exceptions) and that's basically what the war is about. Traditional vs. Modern game and combat mechanics.

 

I enjoyed the DA games, and I enjoyed the IE games. I also favor the inclusion of romances, so you can put me in the Biowarian camp if you want. However, my enjoyment of both sets of games had nothing to do with mechanics. I thought combat sucked equally hard in BG2 as in DA:O. In fact, I've found the combat to be uniformly dull in every RTwP RPG I've played (unless you count ME2 to be RTwP, 'cause its combat was actually pretty fun). The reason I enjoyed these games was the story and/or setting. I enjoyed being able to create a character and adventure in a fantasy world. Even though the combat mechanics bore me to tears in RTwP games, I can still enjoy the act of fighting in them if the setting or story gives me a reason to care. If the story makes me feel like fighting through a bunch of enemies is important, it can, sometimes, be enjoyable, however tedious the act of doing so may be.

 

As such, I'm not overly concerned with what direction Obsidian takes for P:E's combat. I'm fairly certain I won't like it, just as with its predecessors, so I'm pinning my hopes on the story and level of reactivity. As this is an Obsidian game, and Obsidian is the god-emperor of story-based CRPGs, I'm fairly sure I will enjoy P:E, whatever combat mechanics they decide on.

[Osvir]

I liked DA 2. I actually liked it better than DA:O. Come at me bro

 

*hugs* It's going to be alright... don't worry *looks at P:E with a smile* it's going to be alright

[Vin]

Interesting discussion -- I agree with the sentiment in the original post, but also agree that it over simplifies things. I'd put it this way:

 

There are two groups participating on this forum:

 

1) "Game oriented contributors": People who want a good game made by Obsidian / specific developers. The specific feature set of the game is mostly irrelevant to this group.

2) "Feature oriented contributors": People who are interested in a specific set of features. This group of contributors believe that having features "A", "B", and "C" (and not having features "D", and "E") is by itself the goal of this project.

 

Members of group #1 are generally:

• More likely to have primarily determined their contribution level by the rewards associated with that tier, and are only likely to increase their donation amount if doing so gets them a new award.
  
• They are also more likely to view recent Bioware games in a favorable light.
  
• They are most likely to support innovation on Obsidian's part favorably ("They know what they are doing")
  
• They are most likely to support adding "options" to the game in an effort to maximize the commercial success of the game, especially as stretch goals.
  
• They believe the whole point of the effort is to make a game that sells lots of copies (e.g. to non-kickstarter contributors). This will enable Obsidian to make other games, hopefully without having to go through Kickstarter to do so.
  

Member of group #2 are generally:

• Likely to have donated based on what they can afford, without regard to the awards associated with the tier, and are only likely to increase their contribution if a new feature is announced (or, more commonly, if a specific feature is excluded).
  
• Likely to have hated the recent Bioware games (in general, to have a very narrow definition of what "RPG" means).
  
• Violently oppose deviations from the Infinity Engine feature set.
  
• Oppose adding stretch goals that add "options", especially if those options would tend to broaden the audience of the game.
  
• They believe that simply completing the game and sending it to the backers is enough to make the game successful, even if it never sells a single retail copy. While they likely want a sequel, they believe that this effort should also be funded via kickstarter.
  

Group #1 far outnumbers group #2, and members of group #2 acutely aware of this fact. This is one of the reasons that they oppose any effort to broaden the appeal of the game -- they are already in the minority, and bringing on new gamers will only make the situation worse.

 

I'm part of #2, as is the OP. Not unsurprisingly, most of the posters in this thread are part of #1 (as they make up most of the posters on this message board).

 

Those are some suspiciously specific generalizations there.

Unsurprisingly, it's not hard to tell what group you believed yourself to be a part of before you decided to let us know anyways.

Have some decency and cover up; your bias is showing.

[Jaesun]

I still don't know what direction Obsidian even wants to take the combat. A more next-gen, "evolved", modern sort of system with modern combat dynamics, or something quite close to BG2/IWD/PS:T.

Close to BG2/IWD.

 

Thank you. I can now sleep at night.

[Monte Carlo]

I still don't know what direction Obsidian even wants to take the combat. A more next-gen, "evolved", modern sort of system with modern combat dynamics, or something quite close to BG2/IWD/PS:T.

Close to BG2/IWD.

 

Thank you. I can now sleep at night.

 

And hopefully so can everybody else.

[Ieo]

I still don't know what direction Obsidian even wants to take the combat. A more next-gen, "evolved", modern sort of system with modern combat dynamics, or something quite close to BG2/IWD/PS:T.

Close to BG2/IWD.

 

If it wasn't clear enough already...

 

OP's beef and string of thinly veiled tirades across the forum started, I believe, upon the announcement of the keyword "cooldown." He's basically a Vancian purist (although my friends explained where "Vancian" actually came from, and D&D didn't do it right, so whatever). I'm not convinced that merely the addition of cooldowns will somehow pull PE away from IWD/BG2-style gameplay. There are so many creative ways it could be implemented, and I think the OP is just being narrow-minded in this respect.

 

Anyway, because this thread is basically pointless.... I'll add something to the little side discussion about Dragon Age. I do think DA:O was fine on its own--but it was targeting partly the wrong audience. My hatred for DA:O is quite personal. It was just too different from BG--I might've appreciated certain elements, sure, but it just wasn't what I was expecting. Worst part? DA:O was sold mainly for being tied to Bioware, and I thought "Baldur's Gate? Bioware? So it must be good, right?"

 

DA:O was fine on its own without taking into account any of the nostalgia factors thrown into the marketing.

 

The problem for me was that I specifically bought DA:O only for the constant mention of "spiritual successor to BG," and I was burned. Boy, was I burned, such that I just gave my discs to friends without looking back. Honestly, I felt completely betrayed and hated Bioware a little more.

 

The fact that I backed this Kickstarter containing yet more nostalgia marketing shows that I'm really itching too but have just enough optimism left that a crowdsourced venture will actually work.

 

Please don't pull a DA:O on me, Obsidian. I will cry lots. And lose all faith in the game industry completely, forevers.

[Ink Blot]

I just like games. Old school, new style, it's all good to me. I love the IE games - which is why I"m funding this project. I love RPGs. I like other game genres. Turn-based, RTwP, real time, it can all be fun. Now I find out that because I don't have a burning hatred for all things BioWare and anything that doesn't fit into the 'traditionalist' viewpoint that I'm not one of the cool kids? Wow, what a disappointing revelation. My life - it no longer has meaning!

[evdk]

If you enjoyed DA2 it puts you squarely in the "should be culled to prevent breading" group.

 

I liked DA 2. I actually liked it better than DA:O. Come at me bro

 

 

I wouldn't even touch you with a ten foot pole. It might be catching.

[Uomoz]

If you enjoyed DA2 it puts you squarely in the "should be culled to prevent breading" group.

 

I liked DA 2. I actually liked it better than DA:O. Come at me bro

 

 

I wouldn't even touch you with a ten foot pole. It might be catching.

 

I liked it aswell :3

[Cantousent]

There are two groups participating on this forum:

 

Members of group #1 are generally:

• More likely to have primarily determined their contribution level by the rewards associated with that tier, and are only likely to increase their donation amount if doing so gets them a new award.
  
• They are also more likely to view recent Bioware games in a favorable light.
  
• They are most likely to support innovation on Obsidian's part favorably ("They know what they are doing")
  
• They are most likely to support adding "options" to the game in an effort to maximize the commercial success of the game, especially as stretch goals.
  
• They believe the whole point of the effort is to make a game that sells lots of copies (e.g. to non-kickstarter contributors). This will enable Obsidian to make other games, hopefully without having to go through Kickstarter to do so.
  

Member of group #2 are generally:

• Likely to have donated based on what they can afford, without regard to the awards associated with the tier, and are only likely to increase their contribution if a new feature is announced (or, more commonly, if a specific feature is excluded).
  
• Likely to have hated the recent Bioware games (in general, to have a very narrow definition of what "RPG" means).
  
• Violently oppose deviations from the Infinity Engine feature set.
  
• Oppose adding stretch goals that add "options", especially if those options would tend to broaden the audience of the game.
  
• They believe that simply completing the game and sending it to the backers is enough to make the game successful, even if it never sells a single retail copy. While they likely want a sequel, they believe that this effort should also be funded via kickstarter.
  

 

Those are some suspiciously specific generalizations there.

 

I agree, those are suprisingly specific generalizations. I don't know if I'm so unique that I break the mold or not, but I just don't think I'm that special. In particular, I think the whole thread, including MReed's generalizations, shows a certain fixation on Bioware. The OP introduces them as a faction and elevates their status in the first place. I guess you could bring them up as regards the Infinity Engine, but most of the ire associated with Bioware on these boards regards later games. I'm not a Bioware hater or defender. I've bought far fewer Bioware games than a lot of the Bioware haters I see here. For example, although I found DA:O not so bad, I didn't buy any dlc or DA2. I never bought any of the ME games in the first place. I didn't pick up the NWN xpacs. I didn't pick up Jade Empire. I tried TOR, which was surprisingly good, but I canceled my subscription after the first month. ...But, like I said, Bioware isn't the real issue anyway and bringing them into the mix mucks up the water.

 

In regards the other bullet points, I'm mixed between the two. I could technically afford to pledge more, but there has to be some sort of reason and I don't have a money tree in the back yard. On the other hand, I'm pledging as much as I can reasonably defend spending on the project and trying to think of other ways that I could pledge more. All of those increases are earmarked as gifts for friends and relatives so far, which kind of screws up the whole idea of how the two groups buy into the project, at least from my perspective.

 

I think there are so many different ways to categorize folks who've pledged that you could create all sorts of opposing motivations. Frankly, I see a gross appeal to vanity as one of the overarching themes in differentiating the tiers. Some folks go for the cheap swag like patches and whatnot. Some folks feel a personal tie to the devs and want things like the autographed swag. I'm not placing a value judgment on any of those motives, I'm just saying that some of them seem less cluttered than the Bioware/anti-Bioware angle.

 

I only skimmed the thread, so if I have restated someone else's argument, please take it as an affirmation instead of a slight.

[Monte Carlo]

Bioware are pivotal, Cant.

 

I abandoned them after NeverWinter Nights, where I think they were disingenuous as to what the product was about. Then I was tempted back by DA:O, kind of liked some of it (the combat was better than anything else on the market at the time) and had high hopes that the franchise might develop.

 

Then I saw the romances, the diaper-sex, the online monitoring of gaming, the BSN, the hordes of pant-wetting Buffy fans... and left. DA2 confirmed that Bio / EA was gone. It's like a zombie movie when you see that one of your close friends has been taken by the contagion and is now wandering around, groaning with bodyparts falling off.

 

And but...

 

Bioware made BG and BG2. Dave Gaider made some awesome BG2 mods in his own time. Their star will always shine bright for those achievements, but at the end of the day they followed the money. We don't have to like it.

[Nonek]

Personally I wouldn't identify myself with either group of individuals, however I do support a view that many would see as typical for a grognard, however for me it's simply a matter of logic. Modern RPG's appear to me to be devolving, stripping content and features with reckless abandon until they've almost become conversation and combat simulators in dull grey corridors or vast hiking simulators set in beatiful but shallow watercolours. I see no reason to support such games, i've bought a few and more than recieved my moneys worth, but still the Ultima's of twenty years past shamed them on so many levels that it's not even funny.

 

The only company that seems to be challenging this trend is Obsidian, just look to New Vegas and Alpha Protocol for the proof, that's why I support this kickstarter.