Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
KestrelPi

GamesRadar hack writes a hatchet job on Double Fine

Recommended Posts

Don't even bother. It's not worth it.

Are we really going here?

I understand criticizing the article, even saying it's unprofessional or something, but it's really disconcerting to see a mod tell users to not even bother discussing an analysis of the company's business practices over the last few years. It may be rude and not quite up to standards for professional journalism, but this article hardly seems unfair or vindictive.

Seriously, come on. Set a better standard, you're a moderator. Even if it sounds bad, discussing things like this can help us think about things we love critically and try to see what works and what doesn't.

BB is a community moderator (not to be confused with community manager) and he does a fine job. Being a community moderator doesn't remove a person's right to hold opinions. I don't think his having a negative opinion of a poorly researched article makes him a bad community mod at all.

There's no confusion on my part. I'm aware of what they are. A community moderator doesn't manage the community, but they are (as the name implies) responsible for moderating discussion. When someone in that position is discouraging discussion, it's pretty contrary to their position in the community. Disagreeing with it, articulating problems with it, even saying that they think it's awful is one thing, but when you have someone who has the privilege of this sort of position and sees it fit to announce that it's meaningless to discuss an article criticizing the company? It's really worrisome.

Not every opinion deserves a fair shake (conspiracy theories, creationism, flat earth), etc. Sometimes "don't bother; it's not worth it" is a perfectly acceptable response.

Whether you agree with them or not, everyone who isn't actively seeking to antagonize you or derail a different discussion at least deserves the courtesy of disapproval or even silence over "wow, like, why bother, not worth my time." It's rude and duplicitous: if it really isn't worth anyone's time nobody would say anything about it. It's a sort of shaming tactic, an attempt to belittle the article because it's critical of the company, and once again that's troubling to see coming from a moderator when one of the forum's chief rules is courtesy. I wouldn't say anything if they had just voiced their disapproval or said nothing at all, but that kind of response reinforces low quality of discussion and deflection of criticism in the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense, he clearly wasn't speaking in his capacity as a moderator, it was just his opinion - which I disagreed with by the way, and more to the point it hasn't prevented or dampened the ensuing discussion in any way.

Stop trying to stir up trouble where there isn't any. There's absolutely nothing wrong with his conduct.

What you are doing, however, is derailing the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nonsense, he clearly wasn't speaking in his capacity as a moderator, it was just his opinion - which I disagreed with by the way, and more to the point it hasn't prevented or dampened the ensuing discussion in any way.

Stop trying to stir up trouble where there isn't any. There's absolutely nothing wrong with his conduct.

What you are doing, however, is derailing the thread.

I didn't say that they were speaking in any sort of "official capacity", I was giving my opinion about how the actions of a moderator affect the behavior and culture of a board and my personal feelings about it. I understand why you feel the way you do, but I'm not trying to "stir up trouble."

And I agree, we should really stop analyzing my opinions and instead discuss this article.

We could probably both do better than analyzing other people's behavior and laughing at how people phrase things. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you don't visit much. I see you registered a few years back but have posted 9 times. So perhaps you're not aware that plenty of people, myself included (yes, even me who tends strongly in the pro-DF direction) are more than happy to be critical when we think DF has done something wrong. A full range of opinions are had on these forums and many heated and more-or-less civil discussions take place.

So perhaps you can see why coming into a thread packed with forum veterans in order to lecture us on how we ought to be conducting discourse isn't going to come over particularly well.

Back on topic, I think its important because I think there's a narrative about DF that has built up around inaccurate claims that then spread, and this article while not the most damning I've ever read, is partially so harmful *because* it reads quite measured. It happily skips over facts and takes events out of context while maintaining a measured tone, one that would be easy for someone to take at face value. If it was an out and out rant, at least someone less in the know might pause to question its validity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps people will disregard this post because I never use this forum, and this topic has probably been discussed to death anyway, but I wanted to put some thoughts out about this topic anyway since I happened to see the article in question.

The argument that DFA/Broken Age failed because it took a lot longer to produce than the deadline stated on the kickstarter is a bit disingenuous, since the project obviously increased in size a huge amount since the original proposal. It probably should have been communicated more clearly that the increased scope of the project was going to result in a longer development time, but I think people would have been angry either way if they either made a smaller project in the timeframe they originally set out, whilst having a huge amount more funds than they originally asked for, or made a bigger game whilst taking longer than they said they would. You can't really win in that scenario, although I do think most people would want the bigger game even if they had to wait longer for it. People also seem to have strange ideas about how much games cost to make, and think that DF could have made a game to rival AAA productions with the amount of money they got for DFA, just because it's an adventure game, but it's a bit late to communicate this idea when the damage has already been done, so to speak.

As for Spacebase DF-9, the article isn't incorrect in saying that people were upset when they were promised more than what they were given, which is another failure of communication on DF's part, even if they didn't necessarily promise everything that people were expecting. Most of the negative association surrounding DF's early access and kickstarted games could have been avoided if they had reigned in people's expectations of what they were getting when they backed a kickstarter title/bought an early acccess game. This article isn't really taking account the large amount of criticism that DF has gotten, but I find it hard to disagree that developers, especially on kickstarter and early access, need to make the strongest efforts possible to communicate with their customers or backers what they should be expecting from these projects. I doubt that DF need to be told any of this, but it's interesting that people still hold such a negative opinion of DF that these articles are still being produced and people still largely agree with what they're saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no confusion on my part. I'm aware of what they are. A community moderator doesn't manage the community, but they are (as the name implies) responsible for moderating discussion. When someone in that position is discouraging discussion, it's pretty contrary to their position in the community. Disagreeing with it, articulating problems with it, even saying that they think it's awful is one thing, but when you have someone who has the privilege of this sort of position and sees it fit to announce that it's meaningless to discuss an article criticizing the company? It's really worrisome.

I think you're making a mountain of a molehill. All he said was, in his opinion, it's not worth breaking down all the things that are wrong with the article. In other words, he doesn't think it's worth his time to do that, and he doesn't recommend that you do it either. That's not at all unreasonable OR discouraging discussion.

You seem to be accusing him of telling everyone not to talk about it, or accusing him of trying to stop any conversation about it from talking place. DF fans have had to deal with these same old tired and disproven arguments again and again and again. All he said was "it's not worth it", because we've done this a thousand times before. Is that unreasonable? You're trying to take that and make it sound like he's the thought police trying to discourage rational inquiry or something.

The gamesradar article sucks.

Rob's article was great.

BB is allowed to have opinions.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_md2vfj3KDI1rzb3qd.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps people will disregard this post because I never use this forum, and this topic has probably been discussed to death anyway, but I wanted to put some thoughts out about this topic anyway since I happened to see the article in question.

Thanks for coming!

It probably should have been communicated more clearly that the increased scope of the project was going to result in a longer development time,

See, this is one of the most frustrating things. Double Fine actually did a great job of communicating that to backers. I know, because I am one, and I've been here the whole time. Backers have generally (a few exceptions of course) reacted very positively and supportively to Double Fine's announcements. At worst, there was some hesitation, but feelings of actual anger about the announcements were almost non-existent. It has only been non-backers or people who contributed money to the game but haven't bothered to actually pay attention that have this idea in their head that the DFA's development schedule is somehow a shocking or unwelcome surprise.

People also seem to have strange ideas about how much games cost to make, and think that DF could have made a game to rival AAA productions with the amount of money they got for DFA, just because it's an adventure game, but it's a bit late to communicate this idea when the damage has already been done, so to speak.

And confused ideas about the time it takes, too. As Rob pointed out in his article, Monkey Island took about three years to make. The only difference is that the average consumer isn't used to transparency. They are used to only receiving a carefully managed stream of positive news.

Most of the negative association surrounding DF's early access and kickstarted games could have been avoided if they had reigned in people's expectations of what they were getting when they backed a kickstarter title/bought an early acccess game.

Mmmmwell..... yes and no. I think it would be more reasonable to say that it is Kickstarter's responsibility to explain what it means to back a kickstarter project and Valve's responsibility to clarify exactly what early access can and cannot be used for.

Both platforms have now done so, but those clarifications unfortunately did not exist at the time Double Fine was utilizing the platforms.

Also, consumers do bear SOME responsibility for informing themselves about how they're spending their money. The "pre-order syndrome" was rampant in the early kickstarter rush, among both ordinary consumers and (sadly) journalists. A lot of progress has been made to get that idea out of people's heads, but it still exists a little bit. It was all perfectly clear what kickstarter was for, if people bothered to research the platform and piece it all together, but people didn't do that. It had to be spelled out. And even then...

but I find it hard to disagree that developers, especially on kickstarter and early access, need to make the strongest efforts possible to communicate with their customers or backers what they should be expecting from these projects.

You know what's funny? In the ORIGINAL PITCH VIDEO for the DFA, Tim offers that one possibility is that the whole project will be an incredible failure. He literally said that. Obviously no one wants that, but he offered that as a possibility.

And yet look what has happened. According to the consumers, DFA isn't allowed to fail (or--heaven forbid--be "not good enough") or else Tim is a con man. Even though he literally said that COULD be a result.

People see what they want to see. They buy into a narrative, and then they confirm their bias toward that narrative.

I doubt that DF need to be told any of this, but it's interesting that people still hold such a negative opinion of DF that these articles are still being produced and people still largely agree with what they're saying.

Indeed, sir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See, this is one of the most frustrating things. Double Fine actually did a great job of communicating that to backers. I know, because I am one, and I've been here the whole time. Backers have generally (a few exceptions of course) reacted very positively and supportively to Double Fine's announcements. At worst, there was some hesitation, but feelings of actual anger about the announcements were almost non-existent. It has only been non-backers or people who contributed money to the game but haven't bothered to actually pay attention that have this idea in their head that the DFA's development schedule is somehow a shocking or unwelcome surprise.

It's not really an issue about how the backers feel, it's the fact that people who were paying attention to the DFA kickstarter due to it being one of the first big kickstarted projects got the impression that it was having problems with development when it was delayed past the original release date. Or when the infamous hipster lumberjack got leaked and people assumed that it was what the final game was going to look like. This hasn't been helped by the other failed projects that have come from kickstarter and early access before.

Mmmmwell..... yes and no. I think it would be more reasonable to say that it is Kickstarter's responsibility to explain what it means to back a kickstarter project and Valve's responsibility to clarify exactly what early access can and cannot be used for. Both platforms have now done so, but those clarifications unfortunately did not exist at the time Double Fine was utilizing the platforms.

Also, consumers do bear SOME responsibility for informing themselves about how they're spending their money. The "pre-order syndrome" was rampant in the early kickstarter rush, among both ordinary consumers and (sadly) journalists. A lot of progress has been made to get that idea out of people's heads, but it still exists a little bit. It was all perfectly clear what kickstarter was for, if people bothered to research the platform and piece it all together, but people didn't do that. It had to be spelled out. And even then...You know what's funny? In the ORIGINAL PITCH VIDEO for the DFA, Tim offers that one possibility is that the whole project will be an incredible failure. He literally said that. Obviously no one wants that, but he offered that as a possibility.

There's a couple of things to note here: One is that the kickstarter pitch went a bit above and beyond what normal kickstarter fare used to be, in that it was an established game developer with a veteran of adventure games offering to design the game, and they received a lot more than they originally asked for. You don't expect people with that kind of history to appear to fail to deliver, even if the possibility was mentioned. It raises questions as to how competent these developers are if they can't reach targets that they initially set with a much smaller budget in mind, which is a common point that critics raise when talking about DF. The irony is that more time should have been spent talking about the project with non-backers, rather than the people who are fans of them anyway, if they wanted to avoid negative publicity.

Also, at the end of the day, Kickstarter is about making a plea to people to donate, and the people making that plea have to be responsible in how they make it. Steam and Kickstarter might set the guidelines, but the group or person putting up the kickstarter or early access game has to deliver on their promises if they don't want their reputation to suffer. There's obviously a difference of opinion as to whether DF did this or not, but from the outside it absolutely looks as though they didn't deliver, which is a failure of communication after the funding part of the kickstarter was finished.

And yet look what has happened. According to the consumers, DFA isn't allowed to fail (or--heaven forbid--be "not good enough") or else Tim is a con man. Even though he literally said that COULD be a result.

People see what they want to see. They buy into a narrative, and then they confirm their bias toward that narrative.

Sure, that's human nature, and I've no doubt that some of this is because people don't like Schafer as a person, but there's legitimate points being raised here. It's easy to dismiss their points by saying "they're not fans of DF!", but you can't rely on only being able to please a small dedicated fanbase forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really an issue about how the backers feel, it's the fact that people who were paying attention to the DFA kickstarter due to it being one of the first big kickstarted projects got the impression that it was having problems with development when it was delayed past the original release date. Or when the infamous hipster lumberjack got leaked and people assumed that it was what the final game was going to look like. This hasn't been helped by the other failed projects that have come from kickstarter and early access before.

I don't know if I get your disagreement. It sounds like you're agreeing with me that the issue is that non-backers were confused and spreading around conjecture based on little information?

There's a couple of things to note here: One is that the kickstarter pitch went a bit above and beyond what normal kickstarter fare used to be, in that it was an established game developer with a veteran of adventure games offering to design the game, and they received a lot more than they originally asked for. You don't expect people with that kind of history to appear to fail to deliver, even if the possibility was mentioned. It raises questions as to how competent these developers are if they can't reach targets that they initially set with a much smaller budget in mind, which is a common point that critics raise when talking about DF.

Obviously people have a certain amount of faith in double fine or else they wouldn't bother supporting them or buying their games at all, but the fact of the matter is they weren't purchasing a game. They were supporting a project that would HOPEFULLY become a good game. I don't think Double Fine could have made that any clearer. If consumers selectively ignore the implications of what that means on account of being an excitable consumer eager to purchase things, then I think that's on them. As Willy Wonka said, it's all right there, black and white, clear as crystal.

There are essentially two parts to this:

1. Seller has a responsibility to be clear and honest about what they are selling.

2. Buyer has a responsibility to understand as best as possible what it is they are buying.

I think DF has more than sufficiently lived up to #1. I feel like a lot of the failure has been in the #2 department.

The irony is that more time should have been spent talking about the project with non-backers, rather than the people who are fans of them anyway, if they wanted to avoid negative publicity.

Ah ha, but they couldn't do that, because one of the stipulations of the project was that backers would have backer access to all information about the game, and the general public would only find things out much later, around release time. There was even briefly a discussion about whether backers should have to comply to an NDA.

Of course that all went to sh** the moment the first two-faced journo-blogger started leaking exclusive backer information. Which in hindsight is not really surprising and we should have seen that coming, but whatcha gonna do.

At any rate, DF has tried to live up to that original perk/stipulation that backers have exclusive/first access to information. The fact that a**holes leak that information to the public under a sh*tty sounding headline ahead of DF's press release has been the unfortunate backfire of what should have been an awesome perk. You'll notice that perk doesn't exist for the Massive Chalice project. I wonder why!

Also, at the end of the day, Kickstarter is about making a plea to people to donate, and the people making that plea have to be responsible in how they make it. Steam and Kickstarter might set the guidelines, but the group or person putting up the kickstarter or early access game has to deliver on their promises if they don't want their reputation to suffer.

This is the absolute favorite word that haters like to use: "promises". Or when they are being really dramatic: "broken promises".

A kickstarter is not a promise. There is absolutely nothing about it that is a promise. There are no guarantees. A kickstarter campaign is a hopeful thing. It is a desire to do something. We want to make this thing and HOPEFULLY, with your help, we will be able to pull it off. This is not just true of the video game projects, but of the other categories as well.

Let's get away from double fine for a moment and talk about other kickstarters. Let's talk about failed ones. Even people who gave money to a kickstarter that utterly failed and produced nothing do not get to accuse that project of "breaking its promise". That is patently ridiculous. Remember that kickstarter for CLANG!, the swordfighting game thing? That project just folded up and cancelled despite all its donations and a GabeN endorsement. And you know what? That's fine. That is a thing that can happen. That's not a broken promise.

Compare to double fine though. They struggled a bit, but they actually produced a game, and general consensus is it's pretty good. Anyone griping that "It's not good enough" or "I'm not getting it fast enough" or "It's not classic enough" or "this isn't the exact replica of the ideal game I was imagining when I donated" can suck it, as far as I'm concerned.

I may be somewhat opinionated on this.

There's obviously a difference of opinion as to whether DF did this or not, but from the outside it absolutely looks as though they didn't deliver, which is a failure of communication after the funding part of the kickstarter was finished.

As I said above, one of the perks (or should I say "promises") DF offered for the project was that backers would have exclusive information and first dibs on information that would go public. That's not a double fine failure. That's a double fine doing what it said it would do for its backers.

Sure, that's human nature, and I've no doubt that some of this is because people don't like Schafer as a person, but there's legitimate points being raised here.

That's debatable.

It's easy to dismiss their points by saying "they're not fans of DF!", but you can't rely on only being able to please a small dedicated fanbase forever.

It's not even about DF really. For me it's more about the consumerist, Veruca Salt attitudes of people. I have given to multiple crowdfunding campaigns, not just this one, and not just on kickstarter. I gave to those campaigns because I want those projects to be successful, but the difference is that I don't DEMAND that those projects be successful. I am hopeful for them. I support them. I encourage them. I am happy when they succeed. But if they fail miserably I am not going to get indignant and go on some righteous internet tirade about it. If they succeed in making the product but it doesn't quite measure up to the original plan, I'm not going to insist I was lied to and declare to the world that we should all ask ourselves whether we can trust this group of promise breakers anymore.

I just can't stand that whole attitude. Gross. Repulsive.

I don't dismiss people just because they aren't fans of DF, but that attitude I definitely DO dismiss.

Also, regarding the "small dedicated fanbase" comment: Let's not either of us pretend like we know the true size of DF's fan base or what their numbers are like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a pretty great article imo that sums up the state of Double Fine at the moment. I didn't even buy the Grim Fandango remake after their latest stunts and wonder how long they can still run the company the way they have done so far.

Kind of loved Double Fine in their heyday and I own and have played almost every one of their games aside from the Kinect stuff, but the magic seems to be gone and one disappointment follows another.

They did Psychonauts, which was one of the best games I've ever played, Brütal Legend which was rather great and Costume Quest and Stacking that were fresh and very enjoyable. I was let down by Iron Brigade (played in CoOp with friends, never finished because if got boring), The Cave (similarly never finished) and Broken Age was also a disappointment and not what was promised. Then they pulled the double KickStarter and Spacebase DF-9 "it's ready to launch - we ran out of money" thing.

Then Tim decided to pick a side and take an ample shit on half of his lifelong fanbase in what became GamerGate.

Soon after the "Kotick was right." Memes started to flow:

http://steamcommunity.com/app/246090/discussions/0/613937306734463495/

http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2gwor1/tim_schafer_once_again_fails_to_deliver_a/

And now he's just regarded as the sad sock puppet man by the Internet at large:

SuquTjr.png

And the guy that made it into Postal 2 through his late failures: http://www.hardcoregamer.com/2015/04/20/postal-2-dlc-blasts-double-fine-portrays-tim-schafer-as-sexual-deviant/145427/

Especially love this one:

w2iLyIb.jpg

I'm kind of over Double Fine by now, they had enough chances, instead they decided to party it up with DJ Fish Sticks in San Francisco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, my goodness, Dexter! This is utter nonsense.

I have no connection to "gamer culture" or whatever, and I still don't understand what the noise about "gamergate" is or what the "gate" aspect of it is. But the strange assaults by anonymous people holding the "Gamergate" banner on Double Fine and Tim Schafer over Broken Age are unjust.

What is the problem? That we are all getting a bigger and better game than Double Fine could have imagined when they created the Kickstarter campaign? I have no idea.

If you need information, there are many threads on this forum, and the highly enjoyable documentary episodes are available for free on Youtube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for uglifying my forum post with those two profoundly unfunny gamergate images

PS

You don't represent the "Internet at large" in any way, shape or form

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the problem? That we are all getting a bigger and better game than Double Fine could have imagined when they created the Kickstarter campaign? I have no idea.

If you need information, there are many threads on this forum, and the highly enjoyable documentary episodes are available for free on Youtube.

I've provided plenty of criticism when the game came out, my main complaint was and still remains that they didn't deliver what they promised - a classic point-and-click adventure game. Nowhere did it say it'll be a "dumbed down, casual, kid-friendly tablet game".

http://www.doublefine.com/forums/viewthread/12483/

http://www.doublefine.com/forums/viewthread/12906/#325068

Trust me, I know about "the forum" and I've watched all the "highly enjoyable documentary episodes" which were one of the best parts of the campaign. Many people that don't likely come away with an even more negative opinion of all of this.

But it isn't just about Broken Age: http://www.destructoid.com/bobby-kotick-destroys-schafer-for-calling-him-a-prick-184931.phtml

"Tim Schafer. The guy comes out and says I'm a prick. I've never met him in my life -- I've never had anything to do with him," explains the nefarious businessman. "I never had any involvement in the Vivendi project that they were doing, Brütal Legend, other than I was in one meeting where the guys looked at it and said, 'He's late, he's missed every milestone, he's overspent the budget and it doesn't seem like a good game. We're going to cancel it.

"And do you know what? That seemed like a sensible thing to do. And it turns out, he was late, he missed every milestone, the game was not a particularly good game ..."

Almost every word of that proved to be true in retrospect.

The head of a German Adventure game studio (making a lot better actual Adventure games), Carsten Fichtelmann also commented on it back in the day, Tim overpromises and overspends, can't keep a time table and underdelivers:

I unfortunately have to admit that the combined budget of Edna's Breakout, Harvey's New Eyes, 1.5 Knights, Deponia, Chaos on Deponia, Goodbye Deponia, A New Beginning, The Whispered World, Satinav's Chains, Memoria, 1954: Alcatraz and The Night of the Rabbit was less than 3M Euro. These are 11 adventure games with a mean length of usually 10 hours. None of these titles is just average! I have no idea what we'd do with 3M. A Heavy Rain, maybe. Should I be depressed? I just think it's alarming that TS wanted to have 0.3M $ and now 3M are not enough. By the way, Deponia 1-3 is more than 40 HOURS long (!) and competes internationally, everywhere.

It's high time to take off the blinders and rose-tinted glasses and treat Double Fine like any other company out there. EA, UbiSoft or Activision would never get away with anything like that and the "sympathy bonus" that Double Fine had for being "Indie" and "quirky" is gone.

Oh, my goodness, Dexter! This is utter nonsense.

I have no connection to "gamer culture" or whatever, and I still don't understand what the noise about "gamergate" is or what the "gate" aspect of it is. But the strange assaults by anonymous people holding the "Gamergate" banner on Double Fine and Tim Schafer over Broken Age are unjust.

There's only so many times someone can call you things that are untrue and act entirely unprofessional while trying to make "fun" of you before you lose any respect for said person.

You don't represent the "Internet at large" in any way, shape or form

You tell yourself that again and again, obviously what people are saying in some tightly controlled echo chambers is what everyone comes away with. I found this topic in the first place because people were laughing about you and this thread in general, how "pandering to consumers" and "consumer protection" are apparently considered bad things: https://boards.4chan.org/v/thread/291664915/why-do-we-keep-forgiving-double-fine#p291665504

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the problem? That we are all getting a bigger and better game than Double Fine could have imagined when they created the Kickstarter campaign? I have no idea.

If you need information, there are many threads on this forum, and the highly enjoyable documentary episodes are available for free on Youtube.

I've provided plenty of criticism when the game came out, my main complaint was and still remains that they didn't deliver what they promised - a classic point-and-click adventure game. Nowhere did it say it'll be a "dumbed down, casual, kid-friendly tablet game".

http://www.doublefine.com/forums/viewthread/12483/

http://www.doublefine.com/forums/viewthread/12906/#325068

Whether you are content with the difficulty is highly subjective. I symphatize with you that part 1 was too easy, but we haven't played the entire game yet, and Schafer said that part 2 will be more difficult.

I don't know how you define "casual", so I'm not going to comment on that.

Kid-friendly? I'm not really sure what you mean about that, but children are definitely a big marketing group for games, so making something that they can relate to is smart. If you are referring to the story, then I would argue that "young adult" is a more accurate description.

The classic adventure games play well on tablets, touch screens and just about every platform available, as shown by ScummVM, so I don't see how Broken Age is unique in that aspect.

Trust me, I know about "the forum" and I've watched all the "highly enjoyable documentary episodes" which were one of the best parts of the campaign. Many people that don't likely come away with an even more negative opinion of all of this.

But it isn't just about Broken Age: http://www.destructoid.com/bobby-kotick-destroys-schafer-for-calling-him-a-prick-184931.phtml

"Tim Schafer. The guy comes out and says I'm a prick. I've never met him in my life -- I've never had anything to do with him," explains the nefarious businessman. "I never had any involvement in the Vivendi project that they were doing, Brütal Legend, other than I was in one meeting where the guys looked at it and said, 'He's late, he's missed every milestone, he's overspent the budget and it doesn't seem like a good game. We're going to cancel it.

"And do you know what? That seemed like a sensible thing to do. And it turns out, he was late, he missed every milestone, the game was not a particularly good game ..."

Almost every word of that proved to be true in retrospect.

I have no idea what the context of the conversation between Schafer and Kotick was, and I don't know what your point is. If Activision tried to block EA from publishing the game because Kotick was angry, then Schafer was probably angry for a reason. Are you upset that Schafer used foul language? Are you trying to show that other projects that Double Fine have done have gone over budget? Is that a problem? Why is going over budget a problem for us?

The head of a German Adventure game studio (making a lot better actual Adventure games), Carsten Fichtelmann also commented on it back in the day, Tim overpromises and overspends, can't keep a time table and underdelivers:
I unfortunately have to admit that the combined budget of Edna's Breakout, Harvey's New Eyes, 1.5 Knights, Deponia, Chaos on Deponia, Goodbye Deponia, A New Beginning, The Whispered World, Satinav's Chains, Memoria, 1954: Alcatraz and The Night of the Rabbit was less than 3M Euro. These are 11 adventure games with a mean length of usually 10 hours. None of these titles is just average! I have no idea what we'd do with 3M. A Heavy Rain, maybe. Should I be depressed? I just think it's alarming that TS wanted to have 0.3M $ and now 3M are not enough. By the way, Deponia 1-3 is more than 40 HOURS long (!) and competes internationally, everywhere.

It's high time to take off the blinders and rose-tinted glasses and treat Double Fine like any other company out there. EA, UbiSoft or Activision would never get away with anything like that and the "sympathy bonus" that Double Fine had for being "Indie" and "quirky" is gone.

I haven't played any games by German Development Studio, so I don't know if they are good. The guy you are quoting seems very keen on measuring game quality in hours it takes to complete them, though. And as you know, since you have watched the documentary, Double Fine changed the scope when they got a lot more money, so the tentative plan that they had when the created the Kickstarter was abandonded. They never planned to make Broken Age (the game we are getting in one week) for 250 000 dollars (the approximate sum when you subtract Kickstarter fees and rewards.).

Oh, my goodness, Dexter! This is utter nonsense.

I have no connection to "gamer culture" or whatever, and I still don't understand what the noise about "gamergate" is or what the "gate" aspect of it is. But the strange assaults by anonymous people holding the "Gamergate" banner on Double Fine and Tim Schafer over Broken Age are unjust.

There's only so many times someone can call you things that are untrue and act entirely unprofessional while trying to make "fun" of you before you lose any respect for said person.

I did not try to make fun of you - I'm sorry if you took it that way. But I stand by my statement that your post was nonsense. If you are referring to Schafer, then I don't understand the context of your quote.

You don't represent the "Internet at large" in any way, shape or form
You tell yourself that again and again, obviously what people are saying in some tightly controlled echo chambers is what everyone comes away with. I found this topic in the first place because people were laughing about you and this thread in general, how "pandering to consumers" and "consumer protection" are apparently considered bad things: https://boards.4chan.org/v/thread/291664915/why-do-we-keep-forgiving-double-fine#p291665504

As KestrelPi said, you do not represent "The Internet", whatever that means. Yes, many posters on this forum are fond of Double Fine, but I would not call this an echo chamber, as people with similar statements as you seem to pop in ever so often.

As a conclusion, I would like to point out that the kind of personal insults you are presenting here are disgusting! You are mocking Schafer as a person, and also KestrelPi. I actually looked at your link to the 4chan forum thing (speaking of echo chamber!), and people there are offensive and obnoxious, and one of the comments regarding KestrelPi is bordering on harassment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't represent the "Internet at large" in any way, shape or form
You tell yourself that again and again, obviously what people are saying in some tightly controlled echo chambers is what everyone comes away with. I found this topic in the first place because people were laughing about you and this thread in general, how "pandering to consumers" and "consumer protection" are apparently considered bad things: https://boards.4chan.org/v/thread/291664915/why-do-we-keep-forgiving-double-fine#p291665504

As KestrelPi said, you do not represent "The Internet", whatever that means. Yes, many posters on this forum are fond of Double Fine, but I would not call this an echo chamber, as people with similar statements as you seem to pop in ever so often.

As a conclusion, I would like to point out that the kind of personal insults you are presenting here are disgusting! You are mocking Schafer as a person, and also KestrelPi. I actually looked at your link to the 4chan forum thing (speaking of echo chamber!), and people there are offensive and obnoxious, and one of the comments regarding KestrelPi is bordering on harassment.

I'm mostly amused that they seem so threatened by the idea that someone might be a fan of DF's work and like and defend the way they operate, that they've taken the time to visit my website and look at my games, just to make sure to their own satisfaction that I'm whatever counts for a failure in their eyes. It's a rather sad existence, isn't it?

Hi, 4chan. Gonna dox me now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea what the context of the conversation between Schafer and Kotick was, and I don't know what your point is. If Activision tried to block EA from publishing the game because Kotick was angry, then Schafer was probably angry for a reason.

As far as I know, the issue was that Activision dropped Brutal legend during its development when it merged with Blizzard, since they didn't think the project looked promising and was overschedule, and EA picked it up afterwards. Nobody really cares about Kotick, he's just a businessman, but his comments about Schafer's projects going overschedule have been picked up since DFA have been seen to go over its original deadlines and needing to be released in two parts, and so on.

Also, I've got to say that

Hi, 4chan. Gonna dox me now?
is a hilarious statement, as if 4chan is the boogeyman of the internet like people imagined back in 2006.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[

Also, I've got to say that

Hi, 4chan. Gonna dox me now?
is a hilarious statement, as if 4chan is the boogeyman of the internet like people imagined back in 2006.

Not so hilarious when I have friends who have been doxxed after being singled out in similar ways. I wasn't being entirely serious - I doubt that I register enough on their radar, but let's not pretend this isn't the way these kinds of folks operate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole thing baffles me because you'd think the people who have so much about DF to gripe about would tell the devs themselves in the hopes they would take note and change, but no.

It's the completely unrelated, uninvolved forum community that has to deal with this crap every time it comes around. Not gonna lie it's really annoying and samey, and hey you people who want to gripe about DF somemore - we've heard it. It's old news. We know, you don't like DF.

And yes 4chan is a literal shit-hole full of shit-people. This is objective fact, I will not hear any disputes about it. Please don't bring their crumminess here, I like these forums and there's a alot of nice people here, thanks. If you don't like the fact that *gasp* people who hang on the DFAF??? maybe???? LIKE??? DOUBLE FINE??????????????? then yeah there's alot of other online communities who would be happy to jerk it out with you bruh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Journalist does his job, reporting and asks questions. Is called a hack.

Known liar and con artist says woman are professional victims and should leave gaming under the guise of journalism. Is called a hero.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, Ethics in Game Journalism!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a hack, or that piece at the very least is a piece of hack-journalism (well, let's be clear not even journalism because we're talking about opinion pieces here). Half-researched, barely coherent in the point it makes because of how it lurches from one mismatched example to the next, it's a complete hack job and I'd happily say that to the writer's face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a pretty great article imo that sums up the state of Double Fine at the moment.

No, just no. No.

If you don't like Broken Age, Tim Schafer, Double Fine or anything related, fine. That's opinions. It's your right to have them, and I personally don't crare.

But don't call that article great, because it just isn't. It's crap.

It's gets fact wrong

It obviosly has no research whatsoever behind it.

It shows no signs of understanding development processes

It's published at a very weird time when put int the context of the things it want to criticize.

It makes the authour look like he's been living a bubble, with no contact of the community he speaks about.

It's downright embarrasing to call this article great. The only cases I can see it being considered great is if you either

a) have very low standards for what's considered a great article.

b) don't understand it.

c) haven't read it.

d) just want something that enforces your own opinions

e) all of the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for uglifying my forum post with those two profoundly unfunny gamergate images

What in the world do a drawing of Tim criticizing his budgeting skills and a screenshot from Postal 2 where the developers basically call Tim a poopy buttface because of the failure of DF-9 have to with gaming journalism, sexism, or whatever else you want to make Gamergate about? You can't just ascribe words without meaning, throwing them at whatever you think is bad. That's like if I cited Mortal Kombat X's ridiculous DLC as "awful gamergate DLC".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for uglifying my forum post with those two profoundly unfunny gamergate images

What in the world do a drawing of Tim criticizing his budgeting skills and a screenshot from Postal 2 where the developers basically call Tim a poopy buttface because of the failure of DF-9 have to with gaming journalism, sexism, or whatever else you want to make Gamergate about? You can't just ascribe words without meaning, throwing them at whatever you think is bad. That's like if I cited Mortal Kombat X's ridiculous DLC as "awful gamergate DLC".

If I have to explain it to you, you haven't really been paying attention to what's been going on this past over-6 months. GG is a 'movement' (I use the term loosely) based on attacking anyone in games with progressive, social justice oriented views (and no, I'm not debating that, I've really seen enough) which includes Tim Schafer after he endorsed an Anita Sarkeesian video.

The first image is clearly a direct response to a joke Schafer made about Gamergate during the GDC awards and the second image isn't directly linked, admittedly, but comes from the same sentiment.

If you like I'll just call the first one a Gamergate image, which it is, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp, it was only a matter of time before the butt of the internet arrived.

Also: A direct 4chan link? Who even does that? I hope DFAF doesn't have AIDS now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people here who believe that DF have ripped people off seem very convinced of it. They seem to seriously believe they're making a stand for something important, and against something terrible.

I'd like Dexter or Chapter 11 (or anyone else who feels strongly against DF) to explain exactly what they think. For example, WHO the parties behind Spacebase were. Their names, their jobs and responsibilities, and how they agreed to rip people off for mutual benefit. I'd seriously like to hear their explanation of what happened and when. They must have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, in the meanwhile since I posted, unashamed GGers and 4channers have posted in the thread?

Interesting that you all like indie games as much as I do, and took the time to come to the DF forums!

Let's chat about how indie games are awesome and how EA and Activision stink. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Broken Age is coming out in less than a week. The game's entire production process has been filmed and documented and posted for free on YouTube. I could see a misinformed non-backer pulling this "Kickstarter's a scam! Double Fine never delivers!" bullshit a few months ago, but the game is almost here. So what the hell do you want from DF at this point?

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...