Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Tim Schafer

Important question to backers about the DFA doc

Recommended Posts

One distribution channel to consider for the Documentary (aside from YouTube) would be STEAM. It would be targeted more to the developer / PC gamer crowd than a general gaming audience, but could follow the steps of the Dota 2 "Free To Play" documentary as a movie distributed on STEAM: http://store.steampowered.com/app/245550/

I wouldn't consider steam or gog or any game-nerd-specific plattform as the best idea.

I don't know. This documentation is generally too good i feel like it would deserve a wider audience.

I wouldn't watch anything on those plattforms. Because i don't know, you never hear about those something like "Uh, there i found a totally awesome web-documentation" ... i don't know. Youtube is quite the best of all internet options, as double fine is active on youtube allready anyway.

There is not really a big need for anything beside youtube for the internet, is it?

I mean beside that i dislike steam.

Really, i wouldn't want to support steam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One distribution channel to consider for the Documentary (aside from YouTube) would be STEAM. It would be targeted more to the developer / PC gamer crowd than a general gaming audience, but could follow the steps of the Dota 2 "Free To Play" documentary as a movie distributed on STEAM: http://store.steampowered.com/app/245550/

I wouldn't consider steam or gog or any game-nerd-specific plattform as the best idea.

I don't know. This documentation is generally too good i feel like it would deserve a wider audience.

I wouldn't watch anything on those plattforms. Because i don't know, you never hear about those something like "Uh, there i found a totally awesome web-documentation" ... i don't know. Youtube is quite the best of all internet options, as double fine is active on youtube allready anyway.

There is not really a big need for anything beside youtube for the internet, is it?

I mean beside that i dislike steam.

Really, i wouldn't want to support steam.

Yeah, agreed that the audience is different. My original post suggested a wide distribution on YouTube and my follow-up post was meant to suggest STEAM "in addition" to YouTube. But looks like it is live on YouTube now, which is great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugh. If I never read another YouTube comment it would still be too much. They are the worst, barrel scraping, empty headed contributions to the Internet. I'd be happy if they were ALL deleted.

One thing to disable comment section, but skewing public response in your favor is completely another.

And no, they didn't delete just idiotic trolling, but anything critical.

ps. Ok, I have yet to find any actual disappearing critical comment for the documentaries to be sure, but the whole "100% positive feedback" thing that's going on there once again - doesn't inspire much confidence, as there are quite a number of dislkes (which 2PP can't moderate).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugh. If I never read another YouTube comment it would still be too much. They are the worst, barrel scraping, empty headed contributions to the Internet. I'd be happy if they were ALL deleted.

One thing to disable comment section, but skewing public response in your favor is completely another.

And no, they didn't delete just idiotic trolling, but anything critical.

ps. Ok, I have yet to find any actual disappearing critical comment for the documentaries to be sure, but the whole "100% positive feedback" thing that's going on there once again - doesn't inspire much confidence, as there are quite a number of dislkes (which 2PP can't moderate).

There are only 12 dislikes and 222 likes, and only 28 comments so far. I think it's perfectly possible no one has posted a critical comment on there. But personally I don't have a problem with them heavily moderating the comments if they want to. It's their comment section and their prerogative, plus as TP points out critical YT comments don't usually rise above idiotic trolling. If people want to criticise the documentaries, they can do so on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, blogs, forums etc etc - DF/2PP aren't skewing public response if they do moderate the comments, they're just maintaining a pleasant public viewing area for the docs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a great idea to release it to the public and do so at whatever level you decide to provide it for (free or paid). It makes no real difference to me if you earn money from it or not.

Personally I feel I have received much more in value from everything DF has provided to date, and way more than the ticket price I purchased.

So why would any fair minded person want to try and restrict you from doing the best you can do to successfully market your product and to monetise the public release of Broken Age... it beats me!

I would like to see you make a ton of money for all the hard work your team at DF has put into the development of the game and the wonderful insider video series, which gave us so much edification into the process of game making at a big studio, they have been truly inspirational!

So make a ton of money, stay in business and come back to KS with another KS funding opportunity in the near future so you can stay in contact with us and we can continue the special experience that it has been so far!

Don't take the loathers, haters, mean people of this world too seriously, they are not going to change, it's in their genes, they won't be happy anyway you turn.

But I do appreciate that you are sensitive to your supporters and have run this by us.

So do it and I look forward, as I always do, to your next communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But personally I don't have a problem with them heavily moderating the comments if they want to. It's their comment section and their prerogative, plus as TP points out critical YT comments don't usually rise above idiotic trolling. If people want to criticise the documentaries, they can do so on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, blogs, forums etc etc - DF/2PP aren't skewing public response if they do moderate the comments, they're just maintaining a pleasant public viewing area for the docs.

I would disagree. If there was a well-made critical point and they were to delete it, of course that would be their right but it would be other people's right to think badly of them for doing so.

But maybe we should wait for such a thing to happen before debating the ethics of it ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've made it a point to moderate the comments so any criticism of that can be aimed towards me. Speaking of criticism, I don't think we get any that is valid and constructive through the Youtube comments.

All of the comments that get deleted are rude, spiteful, insulting, aggressively ignorant, and/or hurtful towards the teams in general. I don't want to get into specifics, but i'm sure many of you can imagine. It's messed up. Accusations of being lazy stupid liars and thieves is not constructive criticism. I'll also delete comments that flame out of control into petty arguments between multiple posters. There are plenty of places to do that on the net, they can take it elsewhere.

People from Double Fine often look at this content, and it would be nice if they could and not feel like garbage afterwards. Speaking for myself, it's great to get positive feedback on the content we release, but just one nasty comment can outweigh so many nice ones.

We've talked endlessly about the stuff that always comes up. Spacebase. Act 1. Kickstarter. Actually, that's mostly the only stuff that comes up. Point of it is though, it's all been said. Bug reports? Feature requests? Compatibility issues? We want to hear it. Telling us to screw off because of xyz? Thanks, I got the message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you about Youtube. I've almost stopped using it altogether because of the comments. And it's that way on nearly every video. In fact, the comment doesn't bother me as much as it's 50 thumbs up do... It makes me feel like everybody in the world is an absolute crap head.

That being said, I think part of what has haunted Double Fine these last few years has been that they seem to be making important decisions based on the "fanboy" section of their audience. Artists need people to provide honest feedback and that's not what you get from fanboys. Sometimes negative feedback is warranted, and sometimes it isn't but you should at least listen to what your customers (not just fans) are saying...

Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree with releasing it.

In fact, I'll try to show some of it in our monthly IGDA meeting once it is public. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2pp, that sounds horrifying. Why would anyone post on youtube when you have to wade through and clean that sort of abuse as the cost of doing business?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've talked endlessly about the stuff that always comes up. Spacebase. Act 1. Kickstarter. Actually, that's mostly the only stuff that comes up. Point of it is though, it's all been said. Bug reports? Feature requests? Compatibility issues? We want to hear it. Telling us to screw off because of xyz? Thanks, I got the message.

I can understand your point of view here but I hope you also realize that deleting these comments will make people even more pissed off, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've made it a point to moderate the comments so any criticism of that can be aimed towards me. Speaking of criticism, I don't think we get any that is valid and constructive through the Youtube comments.

All of the comments that get deleted are rude, spiteful, insulting, aggressively ignorant, and/or hurtful towards the teams in general. I don't want to get into specifics, but i'm sure many of you can imagine. It's messed up. Accusations of being lazy stupid liars and thieves is not constructive criticism. I'll also delete comments that flame out of control into petty arguments between multiple posters. There are plenty of places to do that on the net, they can take it elsewhere.

People from Double Fine often look at this content, and it would be nice if they could and not feel like garbage afterwards. Speaking for myself, it's great to get positive feedback on the content we release, but just one nasty comment can outweigh so many nice ones.

We've talked endlessly about the stuff that always comes up. Spacebase. Act 1. Kickstarter. Actually, that's mostly the only stuff that comes up. Point of it is though, it's all been said. Bug reports? Feature requests? Compatibility issues? We want to hear it. Telling us to screw off because of xyz? Thanks, I got the message.

First of all, thank you for actually commenting on that. I personally saw numerous disappearing comments under DF videos, last example being Tim's beta announcement, but obviously couldn't provide any solid proof.

Secondly, you describe exactly the type of behavior I hope you will drop, for DF's sake.

So you delete criticism that is not valid and constructive. How about praise? Are comments "Yay I love you guys!" constructive? It was also said a lot of times before, and there is nothing useful in it. Yet you leave even the most nonsensical ones.

Really, all you are doing is banning anyone you don't agree with, objective parameters like being constructive don't enter into it at all.

I'm all for deleting suff like "GO F YOSELSFS Y MOFOS I KILL YO FAMLY" but no, not only messed up stuff gets deleted. I mean you might view them as insulting or rude, but I definitely saw properly worded criticism and opinions without any swear words and without anything directly insulting get removed as well, something that isn't deleted even here, on DF forums.

For example, think about it honestly. Would you ban me on youtube if I posted this on YoutTube instead of forums, and you didn't know I was a backer? Because I saw comments that only mention moderation also get deleted. For that matter, look at metacritic user reviews. None of the negative ones say anything unique and they certainly can be viewed as disrespectful, so if you had the power you would delete those too, right?

Another example, what kind of constrictive criticism could be expected after watching "Tim restores luxury car" episode? People will either be OK with it, or they won't, what's done is done and there is no way to say anything except voice an opinion. And any negative one could be interpreted as rude and disrespectful to Tim, as it would imply that instead of making Broken Age better he put backers money into this car. And you bet it will be mentioned. There is no way to react to that negatively and pass your filter for bans, so again we will see all Yays and Go Tim, while likes bar plummets.

Now, if YouTube channel solely exists for DF employees to read - that's a great strategy (moral implications of censorship aside). But any discussions (even heated offtopic ones) actually increase view counts and popularity of your videos, via notifications of answers, and eventually bringing new people via youtube's similar videos promotion. Right now documentary is far from being popular, comment sections are half-empty, and any promotion will help. By banning people you only reduce popularity of your videos, and eventually - reduce DF profits.

Furthermore, when people say negative or even hurtful things on Youtube - they are on YOUR turf. You can turn that situation in you favor with smart responses, adding additional goodwill to DF. Suddenly a troll gets respected and reveals himself as a human being, this happens all the time.

But by deleting anything negative you force people to vent their increased frustration elsewhere, on forums, twitter, amongst friends, further hurting DoubleFine's image. And a really pissed off man can do a LOT of damage. This is not an immediate effect for sure, but only adds up to and exacerbates PR blunders DF had, instead of using the chance and fixing past problems.

Anyway, whatever strategy you'll choose I wish you all good luck. I'm just tired of defending DF, and watching how from a universally loved developer it slowly becomes some sort of a joke everywhere except these forums is heartbreaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would disagree. If there was a well-made critical point and they were to delete it, of course that would be their right but it would be other people's right to think badly of them for doing so.

You're not disagreeing with me. I didn't say that it isn't other people's right to think badly of anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you delete criticism that is not valid and constructive.

No. This is what Paul said:

All of the comments that get deleted are rude, spiteful, insulting, aggressively ignorant, and/or hurtful towards the teams in general.

I always find it helpful to remind myself that most people on this planet don't feel the need to post comments in public places on the Internet. Those that do belong to a particular tribe -- they do not represent the average member of the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest if I was working for or at DF, I think I'd place the well-being of my employees over the feelings of some abusive commenters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a great idea to release the documentary, it contains interesting stuff even for non-backers and it is definitely the most thorough behind-the-scenes look at game development I have ever seen. It deserves a wider audience. Just my two player production cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just do whatevers best for the studio. Commercial creative endevours live and die on the stormy seas of publicity and bad publicity is bad. Put the doco out so people actually understand whats going on, and after that, well haters gonna hate.

Keep messaging simple though and remember you can't change minds, but you can change topics.

Youtube comments are definately a horrifying thing though. The amount of times i see straight up white supremacist nonsense, violence threats, misogny and god knows what on there, really, a lot of that crowd could do with a good old course of thorazine. Vimeo seems much politer (But the streaming there is just terrible on my bad connection).

e: regarding Spacebase. Every developer , game or otherwise, knows about blown or deathmarch projects. It happens to the best of us. God only knows I've been responsible for a few and I've been a professional software dev for coming on 20 years. But gamers are pretty brutal about this sort of thing. Sucks but thems the breaks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1st Post ever, I have been a silent backer :) and enjoyed the heck out of the 2PP productions.

Haters wont change BUT it will be a great experience for all the really curious guys and gals out there.

So please release it and do it in all its HD glory.

Thanks for the adventure it´s been worth it many times over

//MatsJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like, as an experiment to see if the public can handle the truth of videogame development, unfiltered by PR and marketing, and it's shown unequivocally that they cannot.

Double Fine thinks that if people just watch the doc they'll understand why things turned out how they did. They won't. They won't watch the whole doc and they won't understand even if they do.

The simple fact is, if Double Fine Adventure had been funded by a publisher (which admittedly would have been unlikely) we would have never heard about it until 4 or 5 months before release and no one would ever know or complain about all the delays and overruns. No one would be calling Tim mean names and everyone would just be happy for such a great game and it would probably sell a lot more too.

At the end of the day, people don't want to know how the sausage is made, alas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel like, as an experiment to see if the public can handle the truth of videogame development, unfiltered by PR and marketing, and it's shown unequivocally that they cannot.

Double Fine thinks that if people just watch the doc they'll understand why things turned out how they did. They won't. They won't watch the whole doc and they won't understand even if they do.

The simple fact is, if Double Fine Adventure had been funded by a publisher (which admittedly would have been unlikely) we would have never heard about it until 4 or 5 months before release and no one would ever know or complain about all the delays and overruns. No one would be calling Tim mean names and everyone would just be happy for such a great game and it would probably sell a lot more too.

At the end of the day, people don't want to know how the sausage is made, alas.

If they had been funded by a publisher - there would never have been a game. They would have canceled it after Double Fine spent the entire budget and didn't even have half the game finished. To me, the documentary (which I really like) is more of a "how not to make sausage."

Broken age is a nice game. It was just a very poorly managed project, in my opinion. Give $3 million to Daedalic and they could have made a half a dozen Broken Ages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel like, as an experiment to see if the public can handle the truth of videogame development, unfiltered by PR and marketing, and it's shown unequivocally that they cannot.

Double Fine thinks that if people just watch the doc they'll understand why things turned out how they did. They won't. They won't watch the whole doc and they won't understand even if they do.

The simple fact is, if Double Fine Adventure had been funded by a publisher (which admittedly would have been unlikely) we would have never heard about it until 4 or 5 months before release and no one would ever know or complain about all the delays and overruns. No one would be calling Tim mean names and everyone would just be happy for such a great game and it would probably sell a lot more too.

At the end of the day, people don't want to know how the sausage is made, alas.

If they had been funded by a publisher - there would never have been a game. They would have canceled it after Double Fine spent the entire budget and didn't even have half the game finished. To me, the documentary (which I really like) is more of a "how not to make sausage."

Broken age is a nice game. It was just a very poorly managed project, in my opinion. Give $3 million to Daedalic and they could have made a half a dozen Broken Ages.

Nah, matey, they explained and you chose to ignore what they would have made on a lower budget back in episode 10. Without any extra money they could have cut the scope of the game by a lot and released something much smaller, much earlier. We never would have known different, except to know that it was a pretty short adventure game.

With a publisher, they probably could have got the deadline extended a few times before having to land on a firm deadline, and then they would have had to cut scope. It might have got them a little further but not by much. Heck, a savvy publisher (there are some!) might have even agreed with DF's decison to split the game, and the first we'd have heard of it was when Broken Age, an adventure game in two parts was announced, and nobody would have even heard of the history of how that came about, and we probably would have ended up paying for Act 1 and Act 2 seperately. Far stranger things have happened.

Only this way were they able to make the -conscious decision- to self fund a larger game.

You act as if this current situation was something they were forced into through poor management. It isn't. We're fortunate that they took this road, because it's given us a bigger game at no cost to us.

And don't be so silly, re: Daedelic. First of all, daedelic are based in a completely different city in a different country with different budgetary requirements and with a studio model built specificially around producing adventure games. Secondly they use entirely bought-in engine tools which are designed specifically for making adventure games, while Double Fine, as a studio that makes all kinds of games realised it would be rather limiting to use an engine that couldn't then be really re-used for future 2D projects in various genres. The situations of the two studios just don't compare, and you know it. Besides which, I think that Daedelic's games ARE cheaper - they feel cheaper, and it shows.

While we're on the subject, how many studios can claim to be able to self fund as much dev as DF have managed over the last year? They have not had to fall back to publisher funding, yet are making a part 2 that is by all accounts much longer than part 1, while many other Kickstarter projects have fallen behind and have had to rely on publisher support in order to pick up the slack. The reason that DF have managed to avoid this is through some frankly heroic funding efforts from Justin Bailey that deserve to be applauded, not written down as a litany of financial mismanagement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You raise some good points. I've often wondered if maybe things would have worked out better had they made less on Kickstarter. I think the bigger budget caused a lot of problems. Tim wouldn't have aimed so high. He could have got away with making something a lot simpler... As it is, I don't think the game ended up better for all the extra millions and years it took (is taking) to complete.

And I definitely agree with you about different budgetary requirements between Daedalic and Double Fine... I think trying to run an honest to goodness indie studio in San Fran is nuts anyway. I'd imagine Double Fine probably spend as much on monthly rent than a lot of Indies spend on their entire game budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I definitely agree with you about different budgetary requirements between Daedalic and Double Fine... I think trying to run an honest to goodness indie studio in San Fran is nuts anyway. I'd imagine Double Fine probably spend as much on monthly rent than a lot of Indies spend on their entire game budget.

What cities are you comparing to now?

Double Fine wasn't started as a indie studio, and it was started where you usually start your companies - where you live, so it's not like comparing rents for offices in San Fransisco with Germany, Poland or something similiar really is a meaningful discussion.

And considering that they are where they are, what realistic choices would they have to slim down those costs?

If they had been funded by a publisher - there would never have been a game. They would have canceled it after Double Fine spent the entire budget and didn't even have half the game finished. To me, the documentary (which I really like) is more of a "how not to make sausage."

What's actually shown in the doc is that they have meeting where they realize that with the scope and pace they had for the first section or sections, they would either have to scale it down, or use additional funds. Using additional funds was an active choice, long before all the kickstarter money was spen.t I don't remember that they at any point ran out of money.

And how are proactive choices like that a sign of mismanagment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As it is, I don't think the game ended up better for all the extra millions and years it took (is taking) to complete.

So the claim is that this game isn't better than some hypothetical other version of the game that we can never know about?

Well, feel free to claim this, but it's the kind of untestable statement that you can stand by with no chance of being shown to be wrong, since we have no access to the alternate universe where this game was publisher funded, or released as one smaller game. As such, it's kind of useless to talk about. Like I could claim I might be an astronaut if I'd got that telescope as a kid, but I guess we'll never really know, will we, Dad?

But we can at least make guesses, based on the doc, and based on what we know about act 1, and the development of the project, too.

For example, here's one thing that has been a direct result of this approach. Way back when the announcement was first made to split the game into two parts, I expressed a hope that the second half would be at least as big as the first half, because people's expectations would be set by how long the first part of the game was. At the time, Chris Remo said that as far as he could tell if anything part 2 would be slightly shorter.

But where we are now is that Act 2 is testing more than twice as long as Act 1 tested, and we know that they have at least -attempted- to implement harder puzzles for those that want them. Those things are likely at least partially in response to Act 1 feedback, and so we can make a direct connection between their decision to split the game in two with getting a bigger and hopefully more difficult finished game - things that might not have happened otherwise.

That, to me, is a result. And in a very very short time, we'll see how much of a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's actually shown in the doc is that they have meeting where they realize that with the scope and pace they had for the first section or sections, they would either have to scale it down, or use additional funds. Using additional funds was an active choice, long before all the kickstarter money was spen.t I don't remember that they at any point ran out of money.

And how are proactive choices like that a sign of mismanagment?

Correct. Episode 6 is when the team started going into production and episode 7, a month after full production, is when they first start talking about managing potential future budget issues projecting into the future based on what had been achieved so far. At that time it was only really a few months after the kickstarter period had ended.

In the months after that, there was some cutting of scope, and some efficiency stuff, and some extra money (as described as the goals in Episode 7). As far as we can tell all of these were pretty successful, and Justin found a lot of extra funding in the form of sales, humble bundles, PC port releases e.g. of Brutal Legend.

Around what must have been 6 months later, there was still a shortfall in the money they wanted to make the game without cutting scope, and in episode 10 (released in July 2013, so this was probably around May/June) the meeting is about: Do we significantly cut the scope of the game at this point way more than we want to and aim for a release on the current budget, or do we release a Part 1 in January and use that to buy some extra time for part 2.

I mean 'buy some extra time,' too, because not only did Part 1 sales part-fun Act 2 (in the space of a few weeks after Act 1 released), but that extra time in development bought them the time they needed to make further deals, like the Nordic physical distribution deal, and the deal with Sony.

Obviously they took the latter option, released Act 1 as scheduled and have found a way to take longer than planned on Act 2, and make it bigger than originally anticipated.

When I think of what they achieved, and without publishers, I really and genuinely believe that they did an amazing job at managing what was a tricky project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has gotten pretty derailed but I agree with KestrelPi's comments, and I suspect so do the majority of backers who've been watching the documentary and generally been keeping track of things.

As to answer 2PP's question: I wonder if it's possible to capture a separate video discussion with Justin on his perspective on how the game overall has performed financially, what they might do different in the future, comparing it to working with publishers, etc. - something that other games aiming for crowd-funding may be able to learn from. I know this was touched upon about Act 1 in one of the documentary episodes, but an overall wrap-up with hard numbers would certainly be interesting. When DFA launched it was an almost unprecedented new form of building a game and hearing from the 'business guy' on whether it's actually worth taking this approach would be cool.

And for those of you complaining about YouTube comments, try installing the http://alientube.co/ extension plugin - will give you reddit comments instead of youtube comments for videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And how are proactive choices like that a sign of mismanagment?

When I think of what they achieved, and without publishers, I really and genuinely believe that they did an amazing job at managing what was a tricky project.

In my opinion, coming in years overdue and unknown millions over budget on a point and click adventure game is a sign of mismanagement, plain and simple. This is an adventure game we're talking about. It should have been pretty straight forward. It was only "tricky" because they made it that way. It didn't need to be.

I have a feeling (and I could be completely wrong) that it was the iteration process - combined with the enormous expense of keeping the team going that caused it to go on so long and thus go so far over budget. The scope of the game had to be reduced because of the length of development - not the other way around.

But we're just having a difference of opinion... No big deal. It's easy to sit here and play Monday morning quarterback, so I'm really just making conversation... I'm not trying to be down on the DF team or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that, but it's rather difficult to understand how making accusations of mismanagement is anything other than 'down' on the DF team. There are project managers on the other end, that read this, and are professionals who take pride in the work they do.

Why still use statements like 'This is an adventure game we're talking about'. Implying, what? That adventure games are easier to make than other sorts of games? I can promise you they aren't. It might be easier in some respects, but it's certainly not in others. As has been mentioned in the forums and in the doc (I think) one of the things that's difficult about adventure games is the small amount of content that is un-reusable. Like, for example, one nice thing about a shooter, say, is that you can design an enemy, or section of wall, or door, or sound effect and then keep using that enemy (etc, etc) over and over again in different configurations. Every enemy (etc etc) that you design goes a long way because you're likely to see it in a game in dozens of different ways before the end. But almost everything in adventure games is bespoke. This animation which applies to this particular dialogue in this room for this character who only appears here and nowhere else. This is an oversimplification, but you get the idea. This means that testing also becomes a real challenge, because there are so many unique ways that things can fall over. And so on and so forth.

It's far from 'pretty straightforward.'

It is true that they chose to take a more difficult path in development, but the reason for this, as explained very well in the doc, is that they were limiting the amount they had to cut scope and instead focusing on securing extra money to lengthen development. They could have released a smaller game, for less money, sure, and it would have been easier.

I think most backers are glad they didn't.

It's also kind of an exaggeration to suggest they are 'years' overdue. The original Kickstarter target was abandoned as soon as they had money for a bigger project, and we were never (as far as I remember) given a firm deadline for the game except that it was going to take much longer because of the increased budget. It did take much longer, and the first release date they announced (last January for Act 1) They hit. Act 2 slipped by a bit, but it's hardly like release dates slipping is some scandalous, unusual story in game dev. Happens all the time (see http://www.primagames.com/games/batman-arkham-knight/feature/biggest-video-games-delayed-2015 )

We're not talking Duke Nukem Forever, here. We're talking about an adventure game which they wanted to make in maybe 1 year 6 months (once you factor out pre-production and concept stage) and they actually made in something like 2 years 9 months (ish), after some changes in how they were going to structure the release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...