Looks good, but has backer-exclusive in-game content, so I can't support it and hope it fails. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
It's still something I'm strongly against, for a number of reasons. Little cosmetic things can mean the difference between a good game and a great one, backer/preorder/time-exclusive content means that pirated copies of a game end up having more content than legitimately bought ones, and it just feels wrong to punish later buyers who didn't even know the kickstarter/preorder existed.
I would rather see such things made into premium, never-on-sale DLC, even at the same cost or more than the kickstarter - of course, $40 cosmetic DLC would introduce a lot of complaints of its own and wouldn't sell many copies, but I personally would love to see it because it gives later players the option to have the same complete game as those backers/preorderers while still being fair to those early supporters.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess everyone has his opinions. To me something that is just cosmetic in a game is totally useless, and if developers want to reward people who are investing in the game (quite literally investing, it's not just buying the full product), so be it.
Really, if I didn't know of a campaign early on and "lost" a hat or something for not pledging, I wouldn't care one bit. On the other hand, if I'd see a DLC with a hat or something, what would really piss me off. Maybe yeah, it would be fair putting it like you said, but for the average customer it's just a hat that costs money. When I see a cosmetic thing that costs money (or whatever, for what it's worth I don't really support DLCs), the first thing I see is a money-sucking developer (and I'm not the only one who does), and that's really something that developers should avoid.
Comment has been collapsed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUSKEq02um8
22:30, just apply it to the game industry.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe if you check he whole thing.
Of course they need money, we all need money. The thing is that is THEIR project, not yours, you are the market, you are going to pay for their work AFTER they deliver. Its a learning experience as mentioned by bruce in the video. It may take a little more time to raise the money by themselves, but its worth it, if they can go trough with that, i can assure you, they will do a better product, because they will value more the money and they are actually can lose some of it.
Watch the whole video, he talks about how difficult was to get in the industry. As he stated, it was a nightmare, people should have some nightmares.
Comment has been collapsed.
I watched it a bit to understand the gist of it and I get his frustration, but I think that it's the wrong attitude. He basically says "if I did all that, everyone should do it too". In the past there weren't cars, they walked instead of driving somewhere... shouldn't we do it too then?
My point is, what if there's a better choice? Times change, what was an ordinary and good thing in the past doesn't necessarily make it an ordinary and good thing in the present. Today there's something that didn't exist before, crowdfunding. It was unthinkable to start a game (or a movie, or whatever) in the past this way, but now it's slowly becoming more common and it let's small developer grow, so why not use it?
In the past it was easier making games, since there was less demand, less competitors, less technology involved, less ideas used and reused. Today there's all of that, and without any money you simply can't stand up in the crowd, even if you've got great ideas (unless you're making a mobile game or something like that).
Now I can't talk for all developers that go to Kickstarter in general, but I can talk about these particular developer since I've known of this project for a while now. They do know the value of money, trust me on that. The guy that started all of it it's definitely not rich. He worked (and probably does still) another job in order to pay for all of this, without much of anything else. They managed to "stay alive" for a year and develop what they're showing on Kickstarter, but the money simply is not enough. If players are able to help (and while helping they get the game with a very low price respect on what it'll be), why shouldn't they do it?
To sum up, the attitude "I had nightamers, so everyone should have some too" sounds really selfish to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your quote
"In the past it was easier making games, since there was less demand, less competitors, less technology involved, less ideas used and reused."
U kidding? its the exact opposite, and that is the point of of my original reply. Today is way easier to make games than it was before. You have some spare time? Make a drawing of a character, separate the body in a couple of layers, scan the thing (or better if you drawed in your ipad or something like that), import the sketch to after effects, make some basic little animations, make a looping background, done, you have half of the game.
You dont even need to know how to program, you only need to understand programing (which is different), get a software that allows you to program with events (like the multimedia fusion that came in a bundle for god sake). And thats it. I doubt that super hexagon asked for funding, it was 1 guy making a game, yes, it has low res graphics, but it actually looks better than half of indie games (specially the one with the call center thingie, and i state, only graphically). Anyone with enough free time can do something great, even if they are talentless.
About the competition, i have seen way too many copies of the copy of a clone of a 80's game, yet people still buy if the game is decent enough, so yeah, despite the competition, there is market for everyone, just that they expect to become millionaires with a game, when in fact only 1 in a thousand can do that (just like hollywood movies, and music bands).
And no, its not about walking, even though we have cars right now. Its easier when mommy and daddy get you a car so you can drive a bit wild, maybe try some slides, but its totally different when you work for half a year or even more time to pay for your own car with your own cash, your effort, first of all, the personal satisfaction of doing it, but mostly, you will be more careful, because you know how damm hard was to get it in the first place.
And im not saying that they are lazy or that the final product will be bad, but i simply dont agree with the method, if they can pull it off, great for them, but no thanks.
Typos etc, sorry, im not a native speaker.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know your background, but I am a programmer, and trust me when I say that it's nowhere as easy as you say it is. Now you have tools, that's right, but it is expected a lot more because of it. A game like Doom could be made in a matter of hours today, but do you think someone would buy it now? Don't you think that if it was that easy anyone would do it and there wouldn't be any need for crowdfunding et similia in the first place?
If you want to do something that could stand up among other games and allow you to make an actual profit from it, you do know how to program, there's no way around that. I mentioned that you can make a mobile game without money. That's totally true, I developed myself a few games for Android for fun and what it took me was time. But like I said, I am a programmer, all I did was via code (and quite a lot of it). If you can't code a mobile game, how can you make a pc game with today standards?
And that's not it, because if you do have coding skills, it's worthless when it comes to making a 3D game like this RPG, you need artists, 3D modelers, scripters, writers and so on. And you have to pay them of course.
In the past since the technology was the way it was, way less people were needed (just look at how big those teams were compared to today's teams) and it took less time too. If you have a few guys, it takes years to make something decent (it took the team behind Zaharia over a year to make that prototype). Just look at a game like Braid: even if you can complete it in 2-3 hours and it has a pretty simple gameplay, it took the developer more then 3 years and 200000$ dollars to make it (a 2D game!).
And by the way, you think they're not careful about the money? Like I said, they survived for over a year with pretty much nothing, still have no idea how they managed. That can show you some carefulness right there (if it's even a word). If the campaign doesn't succed, their project is pretty much over and they wasted over a year of time and money for nothing. They do know how god damn hard it is, that's why they're on Kickstarter, which is developers' last resort. If a Kickstarter campaign doesn't succed, it means the game is pretty much dead.
It's not like you're giving them the money and that's it. You're giving money so that they can make the game. If they can't live up to they're promesis, you can be sure that as game developer they're done. That's some pressure.
Comment has been collapsed.
I managed to create 1 a pong game with multimedia fusion in about 30 minutes. no coding at all, just programming by events. of course it looked like shit, but what do you expect in 30 minutes?
People still buy doom, otherwise it would be out of steamstore, the last review is just a couple of months old. Dont tell me super hexagon has the best graphics ever, i even have penguins arena in my library. Have you ever seen desura games? Most look awful, but that doesnt mean they are not fun, nor that they wont sell due the looks.
I know you need programmers, i know you need graphic artist i know you need modelers, voice actors, i know all that, but yes, anyone willing to create a game can do it, the tools are there, all you need is time. That alone doesnt mean that you will create the n.1 hit in history, because is not true, you might not even be able to sell the game, but still, anyone willing can.
Rule n.1 in programming (And in life probably). Dont bite more than you can chew.
By the looks of the game i can see that this guys are good at what they do, but still, they should start small, make a few games for mobile devices, start small, make some bucks, THEN, when they have enough self funding, THEN aim big with a title like this.
And dont get me wrong, i am not saying that they shouldnt get funded, all im saying is that programs such as kickstarters are practically risk free to the indies, since they can deliver a game as is at the deadline since the funding is a charity type (you get some stickers and whatnot, but thats it). On the other hand, if you get funded by the normal means (investor expects a share of the profits), you are expect to deliver a high quality product, and sell at the same time, that is why the self funding is the most important part.
Im not saying that they wont make a quality product. Im not saying that they are not worthy of funding, im not saying that they will become lazy or that they dont appreciate the value of money. Im saying that i dont support the kickstarters type of funding.
Comment has been collapsed.
i look at these fine folks as artists, now im dirt poor and can afford the odd bundle occasionally as my giveways attest theyre all bundle games, what crowd sourcing does is allow people to be the crowd to be the patron which in the past used to be the only way you got any art be it painting music books or anything else, relying on financial success to be the barometer of what gets made gets you reality tv, umpteen cod and fifa clones and hollywoods finest productions, yes george clooney does blockbusters movies and ad's for coffee to fund his art but most successful people use their success to make more cash and dont care what dross is providing it, the reason we have a computer age today is because a man said we're landing on the moon in this decade and then some smart people made it so, thats not sticking to what you can handle thats literally reaching for the moon and touching it and its the only way we'll get anywhere as a species if we encourage such behaviour in all fields
Comment has been collapsed.
47 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by nguyentandat23496
15,386 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by PoeticKatana
1,368 Comments - Last post 41 minutes ago by JohnRyder
38 Comments - Last post 56 minutes ago by pb1
382 Comments - Last post 59 minutes ago by RevCat
1,161 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by achilles335
2,060 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Wok
216 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by Redistributor
26,460 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by MarvashMagalli
87 Comments - Last post 15 minutes ago by s4k1s
286 Comments - Last post 21 minutes ago by davidpfarrell
2,694 Comments - Last post 22 minutes ago by sagan
40 Comments - Last post 41 minutes ago by MarvashMagalli
118 Comments - Last post 44 minutes ago by UnbakedBacon
Hey everyone!
Yesterday Zaharia, an old school RPG with 3D graphic and isometric view appeared on Kickstarter.
It features a unique oritenal setting (which is really cool since there are very few games that have a similiar setting, so it's a really nice change), a big focus on dialogs, choices and consequences, freedom for players and a turn-based tactical combat system.
If you like RPGs, you should definitely check it out here the Kickstarter page and also vote yes in Greenlight.
They also made a free prototype to show off a few aspects of the game, like choices and consequences based on how you want to develop and present you character (with multiple endings too) and some combat scenarios. You can download the prototype here.
I'm forgetting something... oh yeah, a nice giveaway for those RPGs lovers out there :D
Comment has been collapsed.