"But it was made for us."

[neo6874]

 

They are bound to the promises made in the Kickstarter. They are not bound by law, by they sure as hell are bound by the customers. What that means is, if they fail to deliver on the promises they made they will lose any backing on the next project they wish to Kickstart.

 

They are bound by law.  US courts have found that kickstarters constitute a contract, and in the kickstarter FAQ, it says backers can take legal action if creators don't deliver.  That said, the real issue is whether someone wants to go to court for $15 to $5000 bucks over minutia.

 

yes, they're bound to deliver the product they promised (i.e. the game, and any backer bonuses), same as any other pre-order scenario (barring scrapping the whole thing - in which case I am unsure of whether or not there is any "return moneys" clauses for Kickstarter). If Obsidian ships PoE and it turns out to be terrible in the eyes of some "faction" of backers, that's too bad because Obsidian delivered what they promised (an Infinity Engine "Spiritual Successor" to the AD&D games of old, set in a new world*, with new mechanics**).

 

 

* "not Faerun" (PoE continent / world name escapes me)

** "not d20" (which requires licensing from Wizards / Hasbro)

 

 

Edit -- to clarify ... so long as they "deliver" PoE (regardless of whether or not the purchaser ends up liking it), Obsidian's end of the contract is upheld. However, I think Obsidian is pretty acutely aware that they have to deliver something that's considered to be "good" by the backers overall (even if I don't like this part, and other people don't like that part) if they want to keep this going.

Edited April 30, 2014 by neo6874

[Sheikh]

Some people took it as being a brand new iso cRPG and others took it as being IE game with a new setting and a "different" system. They did nothing to dissuade either camp during the kickstarter and now it may come to bite them in the ass, in the form of disappointing one camp and losing their future backing.

That is not what some people think, that is what you think some people might think. It's pretty close minded in my opinion. The devs were more open minded that's why they were not specific.

[Nonek]

For all of the condemnation poured upon those whom want a more faithful IE experience, there was also a considerable number of requests from those who wanted a modern, simplified and dumbed down arpg, catering to the lowest common denominator preferably in a 3d engine. Personally I found these demands far more unrealistic and nonsensical.

[Karkarov]

My question is this: how much of an obligation do developers who make these retrostarters have to their fans? Obviously, they have to make a game they themselves are proud of or what's the point really? But also, they do make statements that will be interpreted to mean they are making a game that is a 1:1 design of whatever it is that they are mimicing.

 

As a secondary follow-up: are criticisms of these games invalid just based on the simple idea that they go against what the game "is trying to do"?

Question 1....  That is the backer misinterpretation.  Obsidian never promised BG3, they never promised to "make a new IE game".  They said they wanted to make a isometric party based tactical RPG inspired by the IE games.  So their obligation is simple.  They have to make a top down isometric party based tactical RPG that has similarities to the IE games, while ideally also making the game fun and something the backers will like.  That is the be all end all of their obligation.  They are not obligated to include hard counters, gnomes, Faerun, the magic missile spell, the Nameless One, or Jon Irenicus.  They are not obligated to make BG3, IWD3, PS:T 2, or NWN3.

 

Question 2.... Yes and no.  Most of the time more to the yes side.  Again with the gnomes example.... gnomes are not a "core" component of the BG series.  They exist sure, but you could get through the whole series and never have one in your party.  So if someone complained about there being no gnomes is it legitimate?  Yes in the sense that you might expect them since they were in the other games.... but also no because they were not promised and in no way are a "core" component of what makes the IE games.  Many of the complaints become invalid because they come down to D&D nonsense.  Eternity was never ever going to have the D&D license.  Which is why I spent many many a post in the early days of these forums encouraging people to not try to compare this to D&D because long term they will only be loosely similar.  Most people ignored me and paid me no head.  It is no surprise that a large chunk of those people are now the ones complaining loudest about many of the reveals as we get closer to release.

 

So Obsidian never lied or was shady about this being a D&D based game.  Since we should have all known that wasn't on the table the vast majority of the "changes" aren't really shocking at all because if you thought about it you would have known they wouldn't be the same.  In the end Obsidian should listen to the backers, but the backers also need to understand... You aren't a stock holder, Obsidian can, and should, keep their vision of the game first and foremost.  Also while on this forum the IE games are huge and deviating in general is considered bad I am going to say it, the "fans of the IE games" don't represent enough profit to keep this IP afloat and they need to attract more than just old players.

[Amentep]

My question is this: how much of an obligation do developers who make these retrostarters have to their fans? Obviously, they have to make a game they themselves are proud of or what's the point really? But also, they do make statements that will be interpreted to mean they are making a game that is a 1:1 design of whatever it is that they are mimicing.

 

As a secondary follow-up: are criticisms of these games invalid just based on the simple idea that they go against what the game "is trying to do"?

To be honest most criticism - even the best thought out and valid - can in some way be boiled down to reviewing a product for what it isn't as much as what it is. Is it terribly fair? Maybe not, but its the nature of criticism; entertainment is open to interpretation, interpretation always opens up the avenue of speculation (as well as personal taste or desire).

 

What's different in the case of Kickstarters is that the audience has a different relationship with the production. In the days of IE, Interplay had the D&D licence and a license to use the Infinity Engine. Black Isle worked on titles that fit what the company was doing using the tools they had available. When a project was presented to the fans, much of what it would be was, by that point, fait accompli.

 

This is a vastly different relationship where the audience also patronize the creation of the product. We are privy to far more decisions early on than ever before. And yet there were things already set in stone early on (single player, isometric).

 

The problem I think lies in statements that are open to interpretation; even in saying that you are making a spiritual successor to the IE games is open to interpretation. We as fans think "Oh the depth of story of PST, the character and options and replayability of BG2 and the combat of IWD!" but it could just as easily be "the depth of story of IWD, the character options and replayability of TOB and the combat of PST!" and still be an accurate statement.

 

But the developers really can't pigeonhole themselves either by being too concrete with their descriptors - they have to have the room to build and create. Which is why I try to keep my expectations on the high level (Isometric, party based, single player, class based systems) and let Obsidian do what they want with the rest; I'm willing to try and take PE for what it is rather than what I thought it should be. For my purposes I've already got what I supported the Kickstarter for - Obsidian making an interesting looking game.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Amentep

[Sheikh]

My conlusion is that we dont know much of how the game plays as a whole or whether it lives up to this or that game in terms of what an experience it gives you. We will know that only after having played for a while.

 

Once the game comes out you can seriously start complaining and suing Obsidian :D

[Hormalakh]

There is something valuable that comes out of all the complaining and that is direct feedback to the developers that they take and use to make adjustments to their games. We, as customers, see people bashing obsidian, their games, or even their developers and feel guilty because we see hate, but people like Josh, I have come to understand, take the useful bits and leave the rest. That is good.

 

You can't change how people react, you can only change how you feel about it. Let people complain their hearts out, but use it to get a feel for their feedback. It isn't personal. Everyone wants a great game.

[anameforobsidian]

 Also while on this forum the IE games are huge and deviating in general is considered bad I am going to say it, the "fans of the IE games" don't represent enough profit to keep this IP afloat and they need to attract more than just old players.

 

 

Why?  What data do you have that proves this?  Baldur's Gate sold 2 million copies.  If this game has half that number of sales from fans of the IE games, Obsidian would be in a much better place financially then they've been for a long while.

Edited April 30, 2014 by anameforobsidian

[teknoman2]

This is really a general question about all Kickstarters, but it also applies very specifically to PoE. I see a lot of comments on not only PoE but DFA, etc., stating how criticism of the game is invalid because the person making the criticism is talking about features that would "invalidate" the feel and/or mission statement of the proposed game.

 

For instance, lots of people wanted to be able to hold down the mouse to be able to move in Broken Age, as is modern convention in keyboard design, but others responded with "you're playing it wrong" or "but that's not how old games were made" or even - and this one I love - "go back to playing Call of Duty".

 

Subsequently, lots of people have a problem with a lot of the Old Skool Design Elements that Josh Sawyer has decided to get rid of, almost as many as those that have a problem with them being taken away in favor of balance. Again, this has led to everything from name calling to personal attacks on the IQ levels of certain or all forum users. 

 

My question is this: how much of an obligation do developers who make these retrostarters have to their fans? Obviously, they have to make a game they themselves are proud of or what's the point really? But also, they do make statements that will be interpreted to mean they are making a game that is a 1:1 design of whatever it is that they are mimicing.

 

As a secondary follow-up: are criticisms of these games invalid just based on the simple idea that they go against what the game "is trying to do"?

it is a sad truth that many people consider technical limitations of old games as gameplay features to be implemented in newer games

[Gromnir]

 

This is a vastly different relationship where the audience also patronize the creation of the product. We are privy to far more decisions early on than ever before. And yet there were things already set in stone early on (single player, isometric).

 

 

is perhaps ironic then that we know less 'bout poe than we did regarding any o' the ie developments from black isle. as black isle ie games were d&d, and having followed bg, we knew much about core gameplay and setting. we knew vancian magic would be employed. we knew thac0. we knew, or had access to, much o' the lore o' the settings o' games being developed. as obsidian does not have a license holder to contend with, they is free to do as they will. such freedom, and a certain odd taciturn quality regarding core gameplay features, has left us more in the dark than other similar developments from obsidian. 

 

am not suggesting that lack of certitude is bad. on the contrary, we thinks freedom for the developer is good. even so, we woulda' expected more transparency this far into development.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[rjshae]

They are bound to the promises made in the Kickstarter. They are not bound by law, by they sure as hell are bound by the customers. What that means is, if they fail to deliver on the promises they made they will lose any backing on the next project they wish to Kickstart.

 

Mmm... no. Your assertion is far too broad. They may lose some backing, but it will depend on the circumstances. If they are forthcoming about the reason and the contributors are understanding, they may not lose very much support at all.

[Stun]

I don't know. The Kickstarter video game development model is still in relative infancy. There's already an overly cautious element at play. If we suddenly begin seeing broken promises (or even zero broken promises but simply bad, cheap-feeling games) from the Bigger game developers on top of that, then I doubt there's going to be too many understanding contributors remaining after the first big failure, despite how well those developers spin their excuses.

 

Make no mistake about this, it is very much in every gamer's extreme best interest that Obsidian and inXile fantastically succeed here with their projects.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Stun

[Mannock]

My question is this: how much of an obligation do developers who make these retrostarters have to their fans? Obviously, they have to make a game they themselves are proud of or what's the point really? But also, they do make statements that will be interpreted to mean they are making a game that is a 1:1 design of whatever it is that they are mimicing.

 

As a secondary follow-up: are criticisms of these games invalid just based on the simple idea that they go against what the game "is trying to do"?

 

1. I think the developers are obligated to make a game in a way that was put forth at the Kickstarter page. If they, in PoE:s case, promise two large cities, they must provide two large cities in the game. It's a contract they made with the contributors to the game.

 

2. I suppose people can criticise all they want, however, the developer can't take into account every single point of view put forth on a forum for example. The developer has to focus on what they promised in the first place or the whole project might go bananas.

[SqueakyCat]

Quoting the Kickstarter page, "We are excited at this chance to create something new, yet reminiscent of those great games and we want you to be a part of it as well."  From what I've seen and read so far, PoE is certainly reminiscent of BG/Icewind Dale.  Obviously, we don't know about the story/writing at this point, but I don't think there are any worries on that front.  As they said, they are also creating something new that's 'inspired' by the classics.

 

People expressing opinions of what they liked in those games, or disliked, is to be expected.    If they have added things some backers consider too mainstream or changed things they consider essential to the I.E. games, discussion is bound to take place.  We all knew from the beginning they were creating their own system, so it was never going to be BGIII.  It's only natural, though, that people will lobby for features in those earlier games that appealed to them, or didn't.  I believe Obsidian has been pretty good about listening to the backers and making minor adjustments on a few aspects like resting (thank you Josh).

 

We all want for this IP to be successful for Obsidian to help them maintain their independence (so they can make more games we like).    Personally, I believe PoE will be a very good, even great game.

 

Can't wait to hear about the next Kickstarter.   

 

[Bryy]

I don't know. The Kickstarter video game development model is still in relative infancy. There's already an overly cautious element at play. If we suddenly begin seeing broken promises (or even zero broken promises but simply bad, cheap-feeling games) from the Bigger game developers on top of that, then I doubt there's going to be too many understanding contributors remaining after the first big failure, despite how well those developers spin their excuses.

 

Make no mistake about this, it is very much in every gamer's extreme best interest that Obsidian and inXile fantastically succeed here with their projects.

The Banner Saga devs - Stoic - made a statement once right after their Kickstarter that they would never make one again due to the bullcrud they got from the Factions incident (they threw out their multiplayer as the beta and the backers went to town).

Edited April 30, 2014 by Bryy

[MReed]

 

 Also while on this forum the IE games are huge and deviating in general is considered bad I am going to say it, the "fans of the IE games" don't represent enough profit to keep this IP afloat and they need to attract more than just old players.

 

 

Why?  What data do you have that proves this?  Baldur's Gate sold 2 million copies.  If this game has half that number of sales from fans of the IE games, Obsidian would be in a much better place financially then they've been for a long while.

 

 

Even more to the point -- the whole purpose of the Kickstarter (I thought) was to make a game that was highly unlikelly to be a mass market success because it catered to the whims and desires of a small "niche" audience of players.  A project like that could only be funded through Kickstarter (or similar means) as people who actually expect a financial return on their investment would see it far high of a risk for far to small of a return due to the small known audience.

 

Instead, as we now know, the actual purpose of the Kickstarter was to fund a game intended to be a mass market success that would normally be funded by publishers, but the publishers weren't interested.  The opinions of the backers are totally irrelevant to the design of the game because they aren't and never were intended to be more than a small slice (say, 5%) of the total market for the game.

[anameforobsidian]

 

 

 Also while on this forum the IE games are huge and deviating in general is considered bad I am going to say it, the "fans of the IE games" don't represent enough profit to keep this IP afloat and they need to attract more than just old players.

 

 

Why?  What data do you have that proves this?  Baldur's Gate sold 2 million copies.  If this game has half that number of sales from fans of the IE games, Obsidian would be in a much better place financially then they've been for a long while.

 

 

Even more to the point -- the whole purpose of the Kickstarter (I thought) was to make a game that was highly unlikelly to be a mass market success because it catered to the whims and desires of a small "niche" audience of players.  A project like that could only be funded through Kickstarter (or similar means) as people who actually expect a financial return on their investment would see it far high of a risk for far to small of a return due to the small known audience.

 

Instead, as we now know, the actual purpose of the Kickstarter was to fund a game intended to be a mass market success that would normally be funded by publishers, but the publishers weren't interested.  The opinions of the backers are totally irrelevant to the design of the game because they aren't and never were intended to be more than a small slice (say, 5%) of the total market for the game.

 

 

How many conversations have they had / changes have they made about attributes, interfaces, class roles, and skills because of backer input?  I know for a fact they've changed all of these things in one way or another due to backer input.  They took a big look at the way shadows worked because of backer input on the video, and they're still working on that one.  They're also doing a ****ton better at communicating than virtually every other kickstarter, many of whom have a separate blog and forget to repost things to kickstarter.

 

I do think that sometimes people at Obsidian do act like a big company and maintain a certain closeness (Feargus), but in general they've been incredibly open with their thought process and responding to criticism.  Especially JE Sawyer and Justin Bell.

Edited April 30, 2014 by anameforobsidian

[Bryy]

They're also doing a ****ton better at communicating than virtually every other kickstarter, many of whom have a separate blog and forget to repost things to kickstarter.

I do agree, even over DFA, who have a documentary about the game's development (which is pretty sugar-coated).

[MReed]

 

How many conversations have they had / changes have they made about attributes, interfaces, class roles, and skills because of backer input?  I know for a fact they've changed all of these things in one way or another due to backer input.  They took a big look at the way shadows worked because of backer input on the video, and they're still working on that one.  They're also doing a ****ton better at communicating than virtually every other kickstarter, many of whom have a separate blog and forget to repost things to kickstarter.

 

I do think that sometimes people at Obsidian do act like a big company and maintain a certain closeness (Feargus), but in general they've been incredibly open with their thought process and responding to criticism.  Especially JE Sawyer and Justin Bell.

 

 

The only change that I'm aware of that made in response to backer feedback was to replace cooldowns with "/ day", "/ encounter", and "at will" abilities -- and that was back while the Kickstarter was running, I think.  I'm aware of other examples where initially announced systems have been changed (most recently, the resting system was altered to allow resting in most places, limited by the availability of rations, with bonuses available for resting in appropriate locations), but...  Based on the developer comment, the change was driven by internal playtesting or discussion rather than specifically backer feedback (see http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66100-death-dying/?p=1443390 -- note that the change occurred "in the past several months", so it clearly wasn't driven directly by the thread in question).

 

Can you provide examples that meet the following criteria:

 

1) Something was announced

2) There were one or more active discussions (either here or elsewhere) where concerns were raised

3) Whatever it was that was announced was changed in ways that clearly addressed the concerns

 

With links, of course.

 

Honestly, it wouldn't shock me to hear that such examples do exist, because there are such a wide variety of mechanisms where the developers sometime interact with the community that I find it impossible to keep track of everything that is going on.  Basically, I read this forum with some regularity, and I read the Kickstarter updates, but that's about it.  So if Sawyer or another developer is having indepth conversations on Twitter / Facebook / interview threads on various websites, in other forums, and so forth it is entirely possible that there are examples where there is a clear relationship between community feedback and game changes.

 

But if there is, I'm certainly not seeing it...

[Lephys]

Sure... in the style, which is vague enough to allow for almost any kind of game

 

ALMOST being the key word here. It's safe to say that if you promise an RPG in the style of the IE games, and then deliver a game in the style of one of todays popular MMOs, for example, you have not delivered on your promise.

By your own words, the style of one of today's popular MMOs would inherently be not-the-style of the IE games. Unless they were very much like today's MMOs, in which case, all would be well, wouldn't it?

 

I realize there's a level of ambiguity there, and it broadens the possibilities for the final product outward from "exactly like one or more of the IE games," but to say that that's vague enough to allow for "almost any kind of game" is a bit of a stretch, really.

 

If you want to design a new hammer, and you make an electric hammer... sure, it's different. It's designed for a button to be pressed and for vibrations/very fast repetitive movements to hammer in the nail that you're pressing the head against, instead of for being swung like an old-school hammer. Doesn't mean it's not remarkably similar in the style of tool/function it bears.

 

Anywho, regarding the whole Kickstarter and obligations thing... I think they definitely have an obligation to hear out/consider all the backers' feedback. They shouldn't just immediately dismiss anyone's concerns or feedback. However, deciding that, all things considered, a concern is not enough to justify changing a design... that's something else entirely. There are some people who feel like if a change isn't made, they somehow weren't heard.

 

But, like you said, sometimes where there's smoke, there's fire. If we point out smoke, and they check it out and decide there's no fire, they haven't simply ignored the alarm. A lot of times, even with things they're pretty sure would be fine, they'll tweak things just to further ensure there's no fire.

 

Josh has made it clear on several occasions that his goal is never to implement something just because it appears to be desired, but always to test it and see how it can function in the game. If the results don't really do the desire justice, it doesn't get ultimately changed.

 

I mean, if 30,000 backers all sent in a petition for there to be puppy-rain in the game, I think he probably still wouldn't put that in. There's got to be some rhyme or reason for a change, beyond mere backer wants. Otherwise, anything anyone wanted would make it into the game, and the result would be horrid. So, as much as the team is obligated to hear our feedback, they're just as obligated to make sure the game isn't just some hodge-podge cluster of a bunch of backer desires, too.

[Lephys]

Can you provide examples that meet the following criteria:

 

1) Something was announced

2) There were one or more active discussions (either here or elsewhere) where concerns were raised

3) Whatever it was that was announced was changed in ways that clearly addressed the concerns

 

With links, of course.

I'll have to go hunt down the link (EDIT: http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/63091-josh-sawyer-on-miss-and-hit/), but they initially planned to remove full misses, entirely. There was a HUGE thread about it, with lots of input from Josh, over the course of a week or two, after which time, he said that, after considering all the feedback about it, he went back and worked with putting misses back in in some form. Ultimately, he arrived at the current Attack Resolution system -- with misses (relative to past IE games) being much less prevalent, and being ABLE to have their chance-ranges increased, or even decreased out of existence, under particular circumstances.

 

Also, just because empirical data from testing ultimately finalizes a decision does not mean that that's the only factor that could possibly have led to the decision. It's not like he just spends all day long re-testing every single possibility of a given implementation, and is never guided in those efforts by backer feedback, especially in big threads that are actually discussing it in-depth rather than just a bunch of shout-outs of "I don't like that!" in an update thread or something.

 

Methinks you are jumping to conclusions you need not be.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Lephys

[Gfted1]

Can you provide examples that meet the following criteria:

 

1) Something was announced

2) There were one or more active discussions (either here or elsewhere) where concerns were raised

3) Whatever it was that was announced was changed in ways that clearly addressed the concerns

 

With links, of course.

Boobplate. They showed concept art, outrage ensued, soon after a new version appeared. A direct result of backer feedback. You should be able to find the thread easily.

[Gromnir]

 

Can you provide examples that meet the following criteria:

 

1) Something was announced

2) There were one or more active discussions (either here or elsewhere) where concerns were raised

3) Whatever it was that was announced was changed in ways that clearly addressed the concerns

 

With links, of course.

Boobplate. They showed concept art, outrage ensued, soon after a new version appeared. A direct result of backer feedback. You should be able to find the thread easily.

 

we get boobscale though, so all is right with the world... at least as long as we get boobchain too.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Karkarov]

How many conversations have they had / changes have they made about attributes, interfaces, class roles, and skills because of backer input?  I know for a fact they've changed all of these things in one way or another due to backer input.  They took a big look at the way shadows worked because of backer input on the video, and they're still working on that one.  They're also doing a ****ton better at communicating than virtually every other kickstarter, many of whom have a separate blog and forget to repost things to kickstarter.

 

I do think that sometimes people at Obsidian do act like a big company and maintain a certain closeness (Feargus), but in general they've been incredibly open with their thought process and responding to criticism.  Especially JE Sawyer and Justin Bell.

First off in response to the money thing I deleted for the sake of having a non massive quote block...

 

Common sense ruled the day at the Friendly Arm Inn and it certainly rules the day in business.  There would be absolutely no point in making Eternity if they did not intend for it to be profitable, and they have already stated they want to turn this into a new IP with sequels.  You can't do that if your game makes no money.  It has even been said they may go to an actual publisher next time if this first entry does well enough, and who can blame them?  Yes there are drawbacks to publishers, but they also have a metric ton of advantages too.

 

Now as for conversations and changes?  Very few actually.  I imagine the vast majority of their design has been the result of internal playtesting and their own design goals/creative vision.  The only thing that I know for a FACT backers did have an immediate heavy impact on was the "Repair System".  The dislike that one thing got was so overwhelming (still don't know why) and despised by the backers it wasn't even maybe 2 weeks from it's announcement they decided to take it out.

 

Make no mistake Obsidian listens to the backers, but understand it is Obsidian's game and they are the veteran game makers with the money and vision.  In the end it will be, and should be, a game made mostly by their creative direction not ours.

 

EDIT: Also yes, Baldur's Gate did sell millions of copies.  Over the course of years, if not over a decade.  They want to be making Eternity 2 within 3 years I imagine, not 5, not 10.  They don't have a decade to wait.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Karkarov

[Gfted1]

we get boobscale though, so all is right with the world... at least as long as we get boobchain too.

 

HA! Good Fun!

You feel the scale looks sexualized or do you object from a realism pov? I can see it now that you point it out but it didn't jump out at me on first glance.