As someone else mentioned it's likely this is purely one of those "does it garner enough interest" kickstarters in order to prove to the big investors whether or not to bankroll them. 50k still seems very low for that kind of indicator though, especially if they plan on making this into something that looks halfway decent. I'm guessing it's not just about the KS itself but how much attention it generates on other sites, what outlets might pick it up and cover it etc, to get a broad idea of just how far reaching the stalker series is for the gamer mindshare.
Ignoring all the worries about potential misrepresentation and the lack of having seen direct footage, this is perhaps the biggest alarm bell for me. I recall TAKEDOWN: Red Saber. For those who don't remember the details of that one, it was an attempt to make a hardcore tactival shooter on Kickstarter; it had both a direct
Kickstarter thread and ultimately an
OT.
It too was hoping to use an initial kickstarter funding drive to inspire angel investors to donate more money to the cause. It made the Kickstarter goal - a whopping $200k! - and then
the angel investors didn't appear. The final game was released driven largely by that initial $200k budget... and in the initial reviews and impressions from the OT, it *really* suffered.
Here's the thing: Areal has arguably a much larger scope than Takedown. It is also expecting investors to come in inspired by the Kickstarter. And if it meets the goal and
then investors don't appear, it only has $50k to work with!
I do see an awful lot here to suggest you should be cautious even if West Games are entirely above-board.
Edit: Thinking about it, I do think there was a project that was originally funded by Kickstarter which *explicitly* stated that the Kickstarter was to produce a prototype with the intention of using that prototype to sell the game to publishers to get more funding. I wonder if that's what Areal is intending without quite being clear on that.
Edit2: I think I was thinking of Neal Stephenson's
CLANG! Longer ago than I thought it was, though! That one did state it, but it was fair to argue that it wasn't quite clear on the subject. This, unless I've missed something, doesn't state that at all.
