Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums
Sign in to follow this  
DF Chris Remo

A New Double Fine Kickstarter

Recommended Posts

How doesn't it make sense? There's a lot of people with that concern. I am one of them.

Surely a crowdfunding campaign is more about your faith in the team's ability to fit stuff together and create a whole and congruent experience than your own concerns, right? I mean, if Brad says he's got mechanics in mind that allow that sort of thing to make sense and not feel gratuitous, then that should be more than enough for anybody. Unless you specifically *don't* want to see same-sex couples in your game (in which case, you've got bigger issues than games to work through).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How doesn't it make sense? There's a lot of people with that concern. I am one of them.

I have no stock in this campaign so this “feature” does not please me or concern me either way, but I view this move as an attempt to join the “let’s be progressive fad” that’s hot in the industry right now.

Being progressive is well and good, if people didn’t treat it as a fad and as another checkbox to check alongside multiplayer and whatever the next hot thing is supposed to be.

If developers really wanted to be progressive maybe they should add purely homosexual or transgender characters in their games rather than play the bi-everything card like Bioware did until Mass Effect 3 and not have them defined by their sexuality (Dethmold of Witcher 2 is a good example).

Given than this game was pushed with the concept of lineage, homosexual relationships raise a sticking point to that concept, which is why they feel forced in their addition. Sure there are ways around it, lineage can be defined in more ways than blood, and they are roundabout ways to ‘breeding’ than a simple male, female relationship, but it still feels like going against the concept.

On the other hand, I don’t know how RPG this game is going to be and how necessary this addition is from a gameplay perspective, if all your relationship is going to be is a few selections in a menu, and not deeper character interaction, then is both unnecessary and irrelevant at the same time.

The ballsy way to handle this given the medieval type setting of the game, would be kinda like how real life things used to be with nobility. Regardless of what the “taste” of many Kings and Queens of the past was, they were expected to marry and breed an heir with someone of the opposite gender that they didn’t necessarily get along with, alliances through marriage is one of the most engrossing concepts of medieval politics, as is having multiple heirs and how that sometimes led to civil war.

So having one partner on the love side and another on the political side would make more sense, but is a touchy subject and can be viewed as discriminating.

Anyway, that’s my two cents as an outsider looking in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How doesn't it make sense? There's a lot of people with that concern. I am one of them.

Surely a crowdfunding campaign is more about your faith in the team's ability to fit stuff together and create a whole and congruent experience than your own concerns, right? I mean, if Brad says he's got mechanics in mind that allow that sort of thing to make sense and not feel gratuitous, then that should be more than enough for anybody. Unless you specifically *don't* want to see same-sex couples in your game (in which case, you've got bigger issues than games to work through).

I think Brad is very capable of making a good game - but the more he entertains ideas from the community - the more I feel like like the project is a turning into a catastrophe. I like games made by Double Fine... not Steve from Milwaukee who spends his days working at a furniture warehouse, and his nights coming up with convoluted ways to get certain features into the game.

I want to support Double Fine, but I don't want to support this sort of game-making by committee thing... So I'm not really sure what to do. Voting on which character art you like better is one thing - having the community actively involved in basic design of your game is quite another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How doesn't it make sense? There's a lot of people with that concern. I am one of them.

Surely a crowdfunding campaign is more about your faith in the team's ability to fit stuff together and create a whole and congruent experience than your own concerns, right? I mean, if Brad says he's got mechanics in mind that allow that sort of thing to make sense and not feel gratuitous, then that should be more than enough for anybody. Unless you specifically *don't* want to see same-sex couples in your game (in which case, you've got bigger issues than games to work through).

I think Brad is very capable of making a good game - but the more he entertains ideas from the community - the more I feel like like the project is a turning into a catastrophe. I like games made by Double Fine... not Steve from Milwaukee who spends his days working at a furniture warehouse, and his nights coming up with convoluted ways to get certain features into the game.

I want to support Double Fine, but I don't want to support this sort of game-making by committee thing... So I'm not really sure what to do. Voting on which character art you like better is one thing - having the community actively involved in basic design of your game is quite another.

They aren't doing that at all. I'm not even sure what's giving you that impression. People in the forums are just posting ideas they have, and when a team member sees one and likes it they comment. That doesn't mean they're putting every idea in. I mean, Broken Age had the same type of thing happening in the beginning. Did you lose faith then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alarmist nonsense that has been rebutted over and over again.

1. We are ultimately the ones who are developing MASSIVE CHALICE.

2. We want this to be a great game. We will principally make our decisions based on that goal.

3. Community feedback and involvement is extremely important to us as an avenue to share development of the game, gather ideas, and simply have fun. It is not a poll-based design-by-committee situation where we will make final game decisions based on how many people are advocating for or against one idea, or how vociferously it is argued for or against. We have gotten lots of great ideas from the community about LOTS of different parts of the game, and each of those ideas that ends up in the game is subject to the same design scrutiny.

4. Ideas can come from anywhere.

5. No decision decisions are—or even can be—truly set in stone until the game is done.

6. Let’s all chill out.

7. Video games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alarmist nonsense that has been rebutted over and over again.

1. We are ultimately the ones who are developing MASSIVE CHALICE.

2. We want this to be a great game. We will principally make our decisions based on that goal.

3. Community feedback and involvement is extremely important to us as an avenue to share development of the game, gather ideas, and simply have fun. It is not a poll-based design-by-committee situation where we will make final game decisions based on how many people are advocating for or against one idea, or how vociferously it is argued for or against. We have gotten lots of great ideas from the community about LOTS of different parts of the game, and each of those ideas that ends up in the game is subject to the same design scrutiny.

4. Ideas can come from anywhere.

5. No decision decisions are—or even can be—truly set in stone until the game is done.

6. Let’s all chill out.

7. Video games.

I don't know if it's intentional or not - but your posts come across as very condescending. You can disagree with someone's point of view without talking down to them.

No offense to Chris Remo, but if he's trying to convince me that they see "gay marriage" as just a "design element" then I'm not buying it. It's 100% political - and has nothing to do with improving the game. You can post that list of yours another hundred times (making it an even two hundred) and it's not going to change that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense to Chris Remo, but if he's trying to convince me that they see "gay marriage" as just a "design element" then I'm not buying it. It's 100% political - and has nothing to do with improving the game. You can post that list of yours another hundred times (making it an even two hundred) and it's not going to change that fact.

I think this is more an insight into your personality and mindset than anything about Massive Chalice honestly. :)

Smiles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense to Chris Remo, but if he's trying to convince me that they see "gay marriage" as just a "design element" then I'm not buying it. It's 100% political - and has nothing to do with improving the game. You can post that list of yours another hundred times (making it an even two hundred) and it's not going to change that fact.

I think this is more an insight into your personality and mindset than anything about Massive Chalice honestly. :)

Smiles

Interesting theory, considering you don't even know me. I think your propensity to try and shut down any argument by implying the other person is an evil bigot says a lot about you, too. Look, we both have theories now. Fun! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting theory, considering you don't even know me. I think your propensity to try and shut down any argument by implying the other person is an evil bigot says a lot about you, too. Look, we both have theories now. Fun! :)

My hypothesis seems pretty reasonable. ;) I'll let your words speak for yours.

Smiles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting theory, considering you don't even know me. I think your propensity to try and shut down any argument by implying the other person is an evil bigot says a lot about you, too. Look, we both have theories now. Fun! :)

My hypothesis seems pretty reasonable. ;) I'll let your words speak for yours.

Smiles

OK, if you think you're my moral superior - because I don't think gay marriage will improve a game based on bloodlines and descendants...

"I think gay people having magic babies sounds like a terrific idea! That would be the best game in the world!!"

(Am I a good person now?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alarmist nonsense that has been rebutted over and over again.

1. We are ultimately the ones who are developing MASSIVE CHALICE.

2. We want this to be a great game. We will principally make our decisions based on that goal.

3. Community feedback and involvement is extremely important to us as an avenue to share development of the game, gather ideas, and simply have fun. It is not a poll-based design-by-committee situation where we will make final game decisions based on how many people are advocating for or against one idea, or how vociferously it is argued for or against. We have gotten lots of great ideas from the community about LOTS of different parts of the game, and each of those ideas that ends up in the game is subject to the same design scrutiny.

4. Ideas can come from anywhere.

5. No decision decisions are—or even can be—truly set in stone until the game is done.

6. Let’s all chill out.

7. Video games.

I don't know if it's intentional or not - but your posts come across as very condescending. You can disagree with someone's point of view without talking down to them.

No offense to Chris Remo, but if he's trying to convince me that they see "gay marriage" as just a "design element" then I'm not buying it. It's 100% political - and has nothing to do with improving the game. You can post that list of yours another hundred times (making it an even two hundred) and it's not going to change that fact.

You came into the thread I started, shit all over it without even bothering to read any of it by your own admission, and now you've come here to do the same. You know what? Yes, I am talking down to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How doesn't it make sense? There's a lot of people with that concern. I am one of them.

Surely a crowdfunding campaign is more about your faith in the team's ability to fit stuff together and create a whole and congruent experience than your own concerns, right? I mean, if Brad says he's got mechanics in mind that allow that sort of thing to make sense and not feel gratuitous, then that should be more than enough for anybody. Unless you specifically *don't* want to see same-sex couples in your game (in which case, you've got bigger issues than games to work through).

I think Brad is very capable of making a good game - but the more he entertains ideas from the community - the more I feel like like the project is a turning into a catastrophe. I like games made by Double Fine... not Steve from Milwaukee who spends his days working at a furniture warehouse, and his nights coming up with convoluted ways to get certain features into the game.

I want to support Double Fine, but I don't want to support this sort of game-making by committee thing... So I'm not really sure what to do. Voting on which character art you like better is one thing - having the community actively involved in basic design of your game is quite another.

It still comes back to whether you believe that the team can make a good game (believe it or not, but during closed door game development, *lots* of horrendous ideas surface, and any faith in their game-making ability must also cover their ability to pick the good from the bad). If you're having trouble with the approach being used, you might be better off expending your efforts in a positive fashion elsewhere by actively supporting the kinds of development models you think make for good games than being negative here.

Nowhere has it been said that this will be a "game-making by committee" thing (in fact, the opposite has been said). If your only evidence that it is being such a thing is merely that the possibility of representing same-sex couples in the game is being entertained, then you have nobody to blame but yourself for those sorts of conclusions.

Honestly though, if Steve spends all of his nights thinking up intricate schemes, playing them out, iterating over them and polishing them to a shine, he's probably got the makings of a game designer in him :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting theory, considering you don't even know me. I think your propensity to try and shut down any argument by implying the other person is an evil bigot says a lot about you, too. Look, we both have theories now. Fun! :)

My hypothesis seems pretty reasonable. ;) I'll let your words speak for yours.

Smiles

OK, if you think you're my moral superior - because I don't think gay marriage will improve a game based on bloodlines and descendants...

"I think gay people having magic babies sounds like a terrific idea! That would be the best game in the world!!"

(Am I a good person now?)

It's just the fact that you actually felt strongly enough about something like this to withdraw your support. This is something that would be such a minor, optional detail of the game, but would allow players who wish to play this particular way more freedom. You can just not use this particular game feature? I don't know, I personally appreciate Brad's interest in incorporating same-sex couples.

The ballsy way to handle this given the medieval type setting of the game, would be kinda like how real life things used to be with nobility. Regardless of what the “taste” of many Kings and Queens of the past was, they were expected to marry and breed an heir with someone of the opposite gender that they didn’t necessarily get along with, alliances through marriage is one of the most engrossing concepts of medieval politics, as is having multiple heirs and how that sometimes led to civil war.

Some players might not care to play in a realistic way, and I don't think having options for people who are interested in just living out their unrealistic fantasies would affect people who are interested in playing other ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You came into the thread I started, shit all over it without even bothering to read any of it by your own admission, and now you've come here to do the same. You know what? Yes, I am talking down to you.

I'm not sure what you mean. I read every page of this thread, not that it matters... And how is having a different opinion "starting ****"?

Anyway, I don't want to fight with you guys. Let's just go our own way on friendly terms, OK? No hard feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You came into the thread I started, shit all over it without even bothering to read any of it by your own admission, and now you've come here to do the same. You know what? Yes, I am talking down to you.

I'm not sure what you mean. I read every page of this thread, not that it matters... And how is having a different opinion "starting ****"?

Anyway, I don't want to fight with you guys. Let's just go our own way on friendly terms, OK? No hard feelings.

I'm all for friendly terms - however that isn't what I said. I said you came into the thread that I started (talking about the other thread, now) and you shit all over that one without reading it (which you admitted that you didn't), and now you have decided to repeat all those same gripes over here. I don't want to fight either, but it's hard to be on friendly terms if you expect to be listened to but don't even do us the minimum courtesy.

If you had read the thread in question, you would understand why Chris Remo is talking about design. Because the thread is full of constructive discussion about how it might be done without really fundamentally changing the design, or adding loads of stuff that would be hard to implement. You would also see that many of the suggestions we made in that thread were ones that could be great for the game just in general, and the fact that they're compatible with same-sex couples is just a sort of side benefit (in fact, the very first suggestion I made is in this category). In the end, you might have still disagreed that it was a good idea. But you didn't even try. You told us that you didn't have to do that to know you're right. You basically told us that it's horrible to even be having the discussion in the first place, instead of actually engaging with our points. How on earth am I supposed to respect THAT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if I will back this one.

The game idea sounds kinda neat, but I'm not sure if it is the right game for me.

But the biggest reason would be simple the price. I would really like a download of the documentary, but $50 seems too much (and compared to that the streaming is announced for free - which makes the deal even worse, because I could just pay nothing to see the content I'm most interested in, as I don't know if I will like game).

I think for the same deal as with the DFA-Kickstarter I would have backed already (and the backer-only-relic-thing doesn't make it better in my opinion, I don't like backer-exclusive game-content), so I'm still pondering whether to back, but I can't really see myself shelling out $50 for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am a direct and honest person, so that's the feedback you can expect from me.

Personally, I think it's in bad form to launch another kickstarter when you haven't delivered on the first.

Are you sure they haven't? Hours and hours of documentary, art being made, music drafts being shown...

I think they've delivered.

No. They have not delivered. They created a scope that exceeded the budget. Personally I would have preferred no documentary and a functional game.

Again, just my opinion but prove you've got what it takes to successfully manage and deliver on a project before asking the public to fund additional efforts.

To the person who posed the hypothetical. No, I wouldn't have a problem with that because I'm not funding it in your hypothetical. If I were their publisher in that scenario I would raising some concerns.

I still have optimism that df will deliver a great game. That being said I think it's in bad form to ask the public to source a second effort without delivering on the first. My inclination is that there is a bit of a Ponzi scheme at work here with funds from this new kickstarter campaign being used in part to fund the final sprints for brokenage.

Now, let me ask you what I feel is a more relevant hypothetical.

Lets say you are a publisher that has commissioned DF to make a game. You've funded the effort and received updates throughout the process. As the project winds down DF informs you they are running out of money, the release date is in serious jeapordy and major sacrifices must be made to complete the game without adding additional time and money to the project. As your digesting this news DF pulls out some storyboards and starts pitching you on a new project.

As a publisher would you be tripping over yourself to fund a second project when your first deliverable is still pending with serious concerns ?

I thinks the folks at DF are tremendously talented developers and creative minds. They're also funny, endearing and cool. I do not question their desire, dedication, or integrity. I believe whatever decisions are made they are trying to do the right thing.

I do question their ability to adhere to a budget and to deliver a game in scope and on schedule. The on schedule component being least important. Delivering a complete and fun game is really all that matters to me. That being said I do want to evaluate their first effort before funding subsequent efforts.

By the way.. Big credit to this community for not flaming my response. I've read through this thread and admire many of the posters and their perspectives. It's not black and white, that much is certain.

Good luck to DF, this game and its backers. I'm sure ill end up purchasing a copy post release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am a direct and honest person, so that's the feedback you can expect from me.

Personally, I think it's in bad form to launch another kickstarter when you haven't delivered on the first.

Are you sure they haven't? Hours and hours of documentary, art being made, music drafts being shown...

I think they've delivered.

No. They have not delivered. They created a scope that exceeded the budget. Personally I would have preferred no documentary and a functional game.

Again, just my opinion but prove you've got what it takes to successfully manage and deliver on a project before asking the public to fund additional efforts.

To the person who posed the hypothetical. No, I wouldn't have a problem with that because I'm not funding it in your hypothetical. If I were their publisher in that scenario I would raising some concerns.

I still have optimism that df will deliver a great game. That being said I think it's in bad form to ask the public to source a second effort without delivering on the first. My inclination is that there is a bit of a Ponzi scheme at work here with funds from this new kickstarter campaign being used in part to fund the final sprints for brokenage.

Now, let me ask you what I feel is a more relevant hypothetical.

Lets say you are a publisher that has commissioned DF to make a game. You've funded the effort and received updates throughout the process. As the project winds down DF informs you they are running out of money, the release date is in serious jeapordy and major sacrifices must be made to complete the game without adding additional time and money to the project. As your digesting this news DF pulls out some storyboards and starts pitching you on a new project.

As a publisher would you be tripping over yourself to fund a second project when your first deliverable is still pending with serious concerns ?

I thinks the folks at DF are tremendously talented developers and creative minds. They're also funny, endearing and cool. I do not question their desire, dedication, or integrity. I believe whatever decisions are made they are trying to do the right thing.

I do question their ability to adhere to a budget and to deliver a game in scope and on schedule. The on schedule component being least important. Delivering a complete and fun game is really all that matters to me. That being said I do want to evaluate their first effort before funding subsequent efforts.

By the way.. Big credit to this community for not flaming my response. I've read through this thread and admire many of the posters and their perspectives. It's not black and white, that much is certain.

Good luck to DF, this game and its backers. I'm sure ill end up purchasing a copy post release.

Actually in the opening they said more about the documentary then the result they said the result could be good or bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. They have not delivered. They created a scope that exceeded the budget. Personally I would have preferred no documentary and a functional game.

The pitch though, was for a documentary, and a copy of the game if it ended up getting made properly. As said in the pitch vid, it would be a spectacular success or a spectacular failure, but either way would be caught on camera.

It's also worth acknowledging that we created a budget that exceeded the scope, and for that reason, the scope was redefined as soon as the crowdfunding campaign ended, and everybody was comfortable with throwing the original "smaller" scope out the window.

It's been stated a number of times that funding for this game is trickier than others - to remain true to the spirit in which the Kickstarter campaign was run, normal sources of additional funding have become inaccessible. It's totally normal to need to rethink things as schedule and budgets come into clearer focus - sometimes this means bringing more resources in, sometimes it means trimming the workload down or refactoring large portions of the project.

As a publisher would you be tripping over yourself to fund a second project when your first deliverable is still pending with serious concerns ?

I think that overplays the "seriousness" of Broken Age's state, but any good investor weighs up risk vs reward, and though Broken Age currently being unreleased would increase the perceived risk of funding a second project, if there were enough resources to realise both and the reward tradeoff (Broken Age's scale now vs the expected scale during the crowdfunding campaign represents an increase in both risk and reward, so the balance isn't thrown as far out as you might think) was looking to be huge, then of course I'd support it.

Your hypothetical situation doesn't seem to address the situation properly though. The DFA asked for people passionate about and interested in adventure games to come forth and show support/share in some development transparency. There's no reason to expect that the people who put their hands up to throw money at that would necessarily be the same people who would also be interested in a turn based tactical strategy game thing.

IMO, it'd be more accurate to ask if you as a publisher would be willing to fund a DF project whilst they already had another in-progress one funded by a different publisher.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...