Playing other Kickstarter funded games makes me nervous

[Hassat Hunter]

I found myself at certain points actually hoping that the stretch goals wouldn't be met

I got that with the dungeon... 15 still sounds a bit too much to make a proper balance/feel/storyline...

[Death Machine Miyagi]

 

I found myself at certain points actually hoping that the stretch goals wouldn't be met

 

I got that with the dungeon... 15 still sounds a bit too much to make a proper balance/feel/storyline...

 

Exactly. Making 15 levels of dungeon that maintain a high quality from beginning to end is really, really hard. I'll take 5 levels of superb quality with lots of interesting story and well-designed traps and monsters over 15 levels of generic dungeon crawling.

 

I may be in a minority, but after a certain point I would have been much, much happier with stretch goals saying things like 'at this level, we'll have enough money to polish all the elements we've already added to a mirror shine, making all the stuff we've already promised work that much better.' Not adding more and more and more features, but promising that the features they've got lined up already will be that much more awesome, play-tested and balanced.

 

Stretch goals like that aren't outwardly impressive enough to get people to open up their wallets, I suppose. 

Edited March 30, 2014 by Death Machine Miyagi

[Stun]

Stretch goals like that aren't outwardly impressive enough to get people to open up their wallets, I suppose.

I agree. They're not. Consumers expect a fully polished and playtested product already, so such stretch goals only invite PR headaches. When a dev says: "give us another $300,000 and we'll make everything more polished", the first thing that pops into my head at least is.... well what happens if we don't? Are you going to give us a half-assed, less polished product?

 

That's probably not a mindset that devs want to tangle with. Which is why you usually see specifics tied to such stretch goals. Like the $4m stretch goal for POE which WAS "enhance the whole game".... but it was followed by "we'll use live instrumentation and add in-game developer commentary..."

 

 

Also, this is sorta why the Torment Numenera Kickstarter rubbed me the wrong way from the getgo and caused me not to bother with it. It used a lot of unspecific stretch goals like "At $2.5m We'll give you a deeper story!" and "at $3m we'll give you More reactivity", and "at 3.5M even more more reactivity". LOL Which makes you wonder what they would have delivered if the funding hadn't gotten that high.... a shallow unreactive turd not worthy of carrying the Torment name which they arrogantly tacked on to it before knowing how much funding they'd get??

Edited March 30, 2014 by Stun

[Death Machine Miyagi]

 

Stretch goals like that aren't outwardly impressive enough to get people to open up their wallets, I suppose.

 

I agree. They're not. Consumers expect a high quality, fully polished product already, so such stretch goals only invite PR headaches. When a dev says: "give us another $300,000 and we'll make everything more polished", the first thing that pops into my head at least is.... well what happens if we don't give you another $300,000? Are you going to give us a half-assed, less polished product?

 

Fair enough, but the first thing that pops into my head as a consumer when I hear '15 dungeon levels!' or 'two huge cities!' is "Wow, those things sounds spectacular in theory, but I wonder how much quality is going to suffer for the sake of all that quantity."

 

Quantity is easier to sell to people because you can tell people exactly what they're getting in the abstract, even if in the reality it ends up being pretty damned underwhelming. It brings in the money, but I don't find it wise to get very excited about it because we've yet to see what '15 dungeon levels' or 'two huge cities' will actually look like and play like.

 

Winning people over by promising them quality is trickier, as providing specifics is much harder. The Torment example you cite shows that. How are they supposed to give specifics about 'reactivity'?

 

Yet I would be much more content knowing that the designers aren't rushing and blowing lots of time and money to meet the letter of all this cool stuff they promised, but instead using their time and money to make it actively awesome and memorable rather than merely functional but technically meeting what they said they would do.

Edited March 30, 2014 by Death Machine Miyagi

[Karkarov]

I agree. They're not. Consumers expect a fully polished and playtested product already, so such stretch goals only invite PR headaches. When a dev says: "give us another $300,000 and we'll make everything more polished", the first thing that pops into my head at least is.... well what happens if we don't? Are you going to give us a half-assed, less polished product?

 

That's probably not a mindset that devs want to tangle with. Which is why you usually see specifics tied to such stretch goals. Like the $4m stretch goal for POE which WAS "enhance the whole game".... but it was followed by "we'll use live instrumentation and add in-game developer commentary..."

 

 

Also, this is sorta why the Torment Numenera Kickstarter rubbed me the wrong way from the getgo and caused me not to bother with it. It used a lot of unspecific stretch goals like "At $2.5m We'll give you a deeper story!" and "at $3m we'll give you More reactivity", and "at 3.5M even more more reactivity". LOL Which makes you wonder what they would have delivered if the funding hadn't gotten that high.... a shallow unreactive turd not worthy of carrying the Torment name which they arrogantly tacked on to it before knowing how much funding they'd get??

Stun has a lot of good points there.  If I saw a kickstarter say "And if you give us X funding we will make the game even more perfect and polish everything to be the best it can be!!!" my first thought would be .... "Uh wait a minute, are you telling me you consider releasing the game in a state that is less than the best it could be acceptable?"  Having a bug free, polished game, with gameplay that works and isn't broken should not be a stretch goal, it should be something you require before you release a product.  Of course many of the corners of the internet would just laugh in this case and say "Well it is Obsidian!"

 

As for Numenera.... yeah.  I wouldn't touch it myself either.  The "Torment" name was never more than a tag line on that Kickstarter and they are only related in the most tenuous and slight ways possible.  Also the whole campaign relied again on nostalgia and loving planescape Torment.  InExile has yet to prove they can make a game that isn't crap, and everything I am hearing about Wasteland 2 is fairly mediocre (outside of the fanboi opinions) and makes me regret backing it.

[Infinitron]

Torment is being directed to a great extent by the people behind Mask of the Betrayer, a rather popular Obsidian title, so even if you don't like inXile you should have supported it on those grounds alone.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Infinitron

[Hassat Hunter]

And then turn to anguish when they made it turn-based.

 

Nope, I sure too am glad I didn't back it...

[Infinitron]

And then turn to anguish when they made it turn-based.

 

For many people, that would be a reason to feel anguish that they DIDN'T back it.

[Sarex]

And then turn to anguish when they made it turn-based.

 

Nope, I sure too am glad I didn't back it...

 

But combat was atrocious in Torment, so it's not really adding or taking anything away from the game. That being said I don't have the slightest interest in the game they are making.

[Hassat Hunter]

Imagine it taking longer, because turn, per turn, per turn, per turn.

Hell yeah... (no)

 

(not that big a fan of TB here)

[Sarex]

Imagine it taking longer, because turn, per turn, per turn, per turn.

Hell yeah... (no)

 

(not that big a fan of TB here)

 

Point taken. If the combat fails again, it's going to be agony.

 

I too prefer RTwP, but am not against a good TB game.

[Hassat Hunter]

No, I am not saying it is easy, I am saying that it is easier. There is not that much animation in this game if we compare it to 3d games today.

Sorry to be so late, but the update wasn't out during this post.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65969-update-75-bringing-creatures-to-life-animation-on-pillars-of-eternity/

 

Not so easy, few or fast, is it?

Now we just need dev-updates on all my other points! Go OE! XD

[Sarex]

Sorry to be so late, but the update wasn't out during this post.

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/65969-update-75-bringing-creatures-to-life-animation-on-pillars-of-eternity/

 

Not so easy, few or fast, is it?

Now we just need dev-updates on all my other points! Go OE! XD

 

Missed the point again, it's not easy, but it's not as hard as the work in large 3d games.

[Hassat Hunter]

I'm pretty sure motion capture is expensive, not more/harder work than actual animating.

But what do I know, right?

[Sarex]

I'm pretty sure motion capture is expensive, not more/harder work than actual animating.

But what do I know, right?

 

I don't know what you know, but I do know that this isn't a big budget game that requires massive amounts of work(in the scale of game making).

[Fluff]

And then turn to anguish when they made it turn-based.

 

Nope, I sure too am glad I didn't back it...

 

Shut up.. You're making me sad. :/

I backed it, and when they later decided to release a poll for RTwP or TB and TB won.. well, yeah..

 

I mean. I'm still going to play it, I feel like I have to play a game I backed for $125. I just don't really expect to like it as much now.

I will admit that like many others, I was pretty much suckered in with the "Torment" name.

[anameforobsidian]

Speaking of other kickstarted games.  This campaign fills me with great joy:

Edited April 9, 2014 by anameforobsidian

[Lephys]

I don't blame people for not being fans of turn-based games. I like turn-based combat, and there are still a lot of examples I'm not very fond of. I feel like it's overdue for a make-over.

 

That being said, I genuinely believe that T:ToN's combat will surprise us all. Mainly because it won't be as simple as just combat. The simpler the component that's being broken up into turns, the slower everything seems, because the less you're accomplishing each turn. But, there'll be a LOT more potential represented by each turn in that game. And, hopefully, they'll do some very interesting stuff with the whole turn-based aspect, to make it not as clunky or rigid as a lot of other games have been.

 

Only time will tell, I suppose, but, from what they've said regarding their approach, it sounds like it'll be pretty exciting, really.

[Fluff]

Speaking of other kickstarted games.  This campaign fills me with great joy:

 

I enjoyed Isle of Bxnes on my tablet, so I know they are capable of making a game that is at least decent.

I only wish there was more in the way of physical rewards. The book is cool and all, but I'd like a physical copy of the game itself.

 

 

I don't blame people for not being fans of turn-based games. I like turn-based combat, and there are still a lot of examples I'm not very fond of. I feel like it's overdue for a make-over.

 

That being said, I genuinely believe that T:ToN's combat will surprise us all. Mainly because it won't be as simple as just combat. The simpler the component that's being broken up into turns, the slower everything seems, because the less you're accomplishing each turn. But, there'll be a LOT more potential represented by each turn in that game. And, hopefully, they'll do some very interesting stuff with the whole turn-based aspect, to make it not as clunky or rigid as a lot of other games have been.

 

Only time will tell, I suppose, but, from what they've said regarding their approach, it sounds like it'll be pretty exciting, really.

 

I will admit that their explanation of the hows and whys made me less sad that I thew so much money at them, but I'm still skeptical.

 

It's not so much that I hate turn based combat as it is that I'm simply sick of it, before I got a bit older and learned about the other forms of rpgs I played jrpgs to death, and back to life, and then death again. 

Edited April 9, 2014 by Fluff

[Lephys]

It's not so much that I hate turn based combat as it is that I'm simply sick of it, before I got a bit older and learned about the other forms of rpgs I played jrpgs to death, and back to life, and then death again.

Noted. As did I. But, to be fair, that's a WHOLE different animal. That's pure action-choice, with absolutely no spacial placement, whatsoever. I mean, just because grid/positional turn-based combat isn't JRPG combat doesn't automatically excuse it for being boring/slow/clunky sometimes. But, it's not really fair to carry over a grudge from JRPG-type combat into, say, XCOM-type combat.

 

I guess I'm just an optimistic person, but, I've also seen some pretty awesome little things done with turn-based systems, even if the whole system was still lacking. I see a lot of potential in what could be combined, and how a turn-based combat system could be ramped up. I think innovation on that front has been slow-going for a while now, and the genre's ripe for an overhaul.

 

Just as an example of how it can be a lot more action-y/exciting, in Valkyria Chronicles, each character has sort of a movement resource (a bar of... sort of "movement fuel"), as separate from their non-movement actions. You can use up that WHOLE bar in a turn, then still attack or do something else, or you can move none at all and attack, or you can move some, attack, then move some more, etc. (and sometimes attack multiple times). But, the movement isn't really grid-based. It's just free-form. Very smooth. Just like an action game, only you can only move so far in a given turn. Meanwhile, anyone in the equivalent of "overwatch" (I don't even think you have to actually toggle anything for that... it's kind of fantasy-WWII-based, so it's a warzone, and I think anyone who's turn it isn't is automatically in overwatch, which is interesting) will fire on anyone else moving within their vision/range field (a cone). If 5 different enemies each take a turn, and each one moves through their cone, they'll ALL get fired upon. They don't just get a single off-turn action. They spend the entirety of their off-turn time simply firing upon whomever enters their crosshairs.

 

So, basically, when it's your turn, you get a LOT more dynamics in the control of your character and choices you make. It's not just "move like 5 squares maybe, and shoot something." You even had people who could lay down sandbags, which could then be used as cover (simply move your person near them, rather than having to put someone in a specific grid-block by the cover, since there was no grid.)

 

It was pretty cool, really. I think they might've even had flanking bonuses and such, especially on tanks. And I think there were altitude bonuses (snipers could climb towers or hills, etc.). There were even terrain bonuses and modifiers, and each soldier you could get had semi-randomized traits. Some were more accurate/had higher defense/could move farther in a given terrain type. They even had simple personality traits that were factors in how synergous multiple soldiers worked in proximity to one another.

 

Which, granted, that all fits a lot more with a more "strategy" style combat system like a war-based game like that. But, I'm just saying, they really went above and beyond the typical "You move around, where you stop changes things, and everything happens very rigidly and you can't affect much outside your own turn."

 

When I think of what all can be done with the turn-based system's skeletal framework, and what all we'll have in "combat" (crises) with T:ToN (including mid-combat dialogue, environment interactions/puzzle-solving, skill checks, etc.), I think it's a lot more representative of almost a PnP turn-based experience -- which is awesome -- instead of JUST combat broken into turns, ya know?

 

*Shrug*. Like I said, I really hope we'll all be surprised by what they come up with, advocates and non-advocates alike.

[Fluff]

You do make some good points, and you're right it's not really fair of me to blame the entire system because of the way a single genre typically uses it. It's just a twitch reaction I suppose, after pouring what has probably been thousands of hours into an endless number of JRPGs over my life it's the first thing to pop into my mind when you say "Turn based".

I'm also still just a little bitter over that being one less new RTwP game that I get to play, it's my own fault of course but I just kind of assumed that's what it would be.

I'm still interested in the game, maybe just not limited edition collector's edition interested like I initially was.

 

I'll still definitely play it, and hopefully enjoy it though.

Because as a fairly poor early twenties kid (who really needs to stop throwing hundreds of dollars at games that aren't even out yet) I can't afford to not play it after backing it.

 

Despite my personal negativity towards the choice, I hope I'm wrong though. I want to enjoy the game.

[Bryy]

I fear WL2 is going to be horrible. Wonderfully nostalgic, but horrible.

[Lephys]

I'll still definitely play it, and hopefully enjoy it though.

Because as a fairly poor early twenties kid (who really needs to stop throwing hundreds of dollars at games that aren't even out yet) I can't afford to not play it after backing it.

 

Despite my personal negativity towards the choice, I hope I'm wrong though. I want to enjoy the game.

I'm glad of that. Really. And, to be clear, it is not at all my intention to berate you. I just hate to see people dread something that they think is all but hopeless, for a pretty good duration, only to ultimately be surprised by quality and enjoyment that they didn't even really think was a possibility at all.

 

It may be weird of me, but I try to present those potentialities and provide some amount of encouragement to hold them in consideration (where you might not have, before, for very valid, human reasons), just so that you don't spend the time period between now and getting your hands on the game thinking "crap, I probably blew $125 on something I can not, at all, be excited about." Because, I know that feeling sucks.

 

Ideally, we can all have some amount of hope for something beyond a worst-case scenario, rather than a "I'm just probably going to not-enjoy this much" mindset the whole time. I just try to share the hope, haha.

[Fluff]

 

I'll still definitely play it, and hopefully enjoy it though.

Because as a fairly poor early twenties kid (who really needs to stop throwing hundreds of dollars at games that aren't even out yet) I can't afford to not play it after backing it.

 

Despite my personal negativity towards the choice, I hope I'm wrong though. I want to enjoy the game.

I'm glad of that. Really. And, to be clear, it is not at all my intention to berate you. I just hate to see people dread something that they think is all but hopeless, for a pretty good duration, only to ultimately be surprised by quality and enjoyment that they didn't even really think was a possibility at all.

 

It may be weird of me, but I try to present those potentialities and provide some amount of encouragement to hold them in consideration (where you might not have, before, for very valid, human reasons), just so that you don't spend the time period between now and getting your hands on the game thinking "crap, I probably blew $125 on something I can not, at all, be excited about." Because, I know that feeling sucks.

 

Ideally, we can all have some amount of hope for something beyond a worst-case scenario, rather than a "I'm just probably going to not-enjoy this much" mindset the whole time. I just try to share the hope, haha.

 

 

Oh it's okay, I completely understand where you are coming from.

 

It's why I try to find somewhat of a middle ground, I'm not going to lie and pretend I'm happy about some of the choices they've made with the game.. but like you said, there's no point in just spending months bummed over something that as you said may end up being better than expected, or even amazing.

 

Ultimately as long as the story, characters, and lore is as good as they are hyping it to be (7 novellas with the game is kind of insane) I'll be satisfied "enough" in all honesty, because that's a very large portion of why I chose to support it. Id' just like the game play that matches that story to just well..not suck if possible.

[Lephys]

Id' just like the game play that matches that story to just well..not suck if possible.

Understandable.