Support NeoGAF

[WanderingWind]

I think until a kickstarter game is released, people who are seeing it as the new funding hope and people who see it as a scam are both basically talking about opinions without evidence. Which is fine and all, but recognize it for what it is.

We really have zero idea how the crowd sourcing as a tool of major game development experiment will turn out.

 

[Famassu]

I think until a kickstarter game is released, people who are seeing it as the new funding hope and people who see it as a scam are both basically talking about opinions without evidence. Which is fine and all, but recognize it for what it is.

Umm.. no?

 

[ArjanN]

I think until a kickstarter game is released, people who are seeing it as the new funding hope and people who see it as a scam are both basically talking about opinions without evidence. Which is fine and all, but recognize it for what it is.

We really have zero idea how the crowd sourcing as a tool of major game development experiment will turn out.

There's been kickstarter games released. 30 flights of loving and FTL recently for example.

 

[WanderingWind]

Umm.. no?

Awesome response. Glad we had this little discussion.

There's been kickstarter games released. 30 flights of loving and FTL recently for example.

Okay, so not zero data. Just a very, very small amount of data. And definitely not enough to act like it's the worst idea/best idea ever when it comes to modern game development. Especially when dealing with major, million dollar projects like Wasteland. (Which I happily donated to). Crowd sourcing may cause a major shift in funding of future projects, it may have a small impact that changes indie development, it could be a temporary blip on the radar and it could very well end up being a terrible thing in the long run. All I'm saying is we really need more evidence - and time - before acting like any of it is a foregone conclusion.

 

[Sinatar]

Kickstarter has been around since 2009, many projects have come to fruition.

 

[Durante]

I think until a kickstarter game is released, people who are seeing it as the new funding hope and people who see it as a scam are both basically talking about opinions without evidence. Which is fine and all, but recognize it for what it is.

Kickstarter games have been released. Sequence is pretty awesome.

 

[Famassu]

Awesome response. Glad we had this little discussion.

Your post just seemed so silly. This isn't a matter of people having different opinions of which one will be proven right or wrong based on one or two games. There WILL be great Kickstarter funded games and there will be less good or even downright bad ones, none of them will prove the RATIONAL arguments of either side right or wrong (emphasis on rational, not the ones that sound like pointless whining) because they are already right or wrong. The risk of disappointment is ALWAYS present, it doesn't matter if it's a Kickstarter project that won't be released until 12-18 months from now or if it's a game that's 12-18 years old.

 

[dude]

Kickstarter has been around since 2009, many projects have come to fruition.

Yeah, but mostly smaller games - We've yet to see any of the big hitters, those 1M+ games. I believe this is the test most people are waiting for in regards to Kickstarter as an alternative to publishers.

 

[Jibbajabbawockky]

I don't get the hate for Kickstarter- its a means to fund a game's development. So if you're sold on the pitch, you can put down some money on the game before its released. I don't see how that is any worse than people who preorder games months in advance, not necessarily knowing how those games will turn out either.

 

[duckroll]

Okay, so not zero data. Just a very, very small amount of data. And definitely not enough to act like it's the worst idea/best idea ever when it comes to modern game development. Especially when dealing with major, million dollar projects like Wasteland. (Which I happily donated to). Crowd sourcing may cause a major shift in funding of future projects, it may have a small impact that changes indie development, it could be a temporary blip on the radar and it could very well end up being a terrible thing in the long run. All I'm saying is we really need more evidence - and time - before acting like any of it is a foregone conclusion.

Ultimately crowd sourcing is just another method of getting investment. The people who make such products remain the same, and the only difference is where the money comes from. Kickstarter is a platform which makes it easier for all interested parties to participate in this form of securing capital. I don't think there will ever be any actual data on whether Kickstarter makes better or worse games, because the means of investment does not really have any impact on the quality of output. It definitely has an impact on the subject matter, which is why it is used to fund more niche genres for games which publishers are less interested in funding commercially, but the actual quality will still depend on the people who make them - just like any other game.

 

[dude]

Ultimately crowd sourcing is just another method of getting investment. The people who make such products remain the same, and the only difference is where the money comes from. Kickstarter is a platform which makes it easier for all interested parties to participate in this form of securing capital. I don't think there will ever be any actual data on whether Kickstarter makes better or worse games, because the means of investment does not really have any impact on the quality of output. It definitely has an impact on the subject matter, which is why it is used to fund more niche genres for games which publishers are less interested in funding commercially, but the actual quality will still depend on the people who make them - just like any other game.

Yeah, I agree with you, but I would say this - My number 1 fear in regards to Kickstarter games is trying to appease the fans. Most gamers have no idea what they want and when they do it's usually just bad. Now, it seems like most of the Kickstarter games in development didn't fall for that trap, but the idea of "listening to the fans" is getting emphasized to dangerous levels for me.

 

[duckroll]

Yeah, I agree with you, but I would say this - My number 1 fear in regards to Kickstarter games is trying to appease the fans. Most gamers have no idea what they want and when they do it's usually just bad. Now, it seems like most of the Kickstarter games in development didn't fall for that trap, but the idea of "listening to the fans" is getting emphasized to dangerous levels for me.

Yes, over-pandering is a concern. But a good developer and good game designers will know how to take feedback and preferences to make something good, instead of lifting requests at face value and just implementing them poorly. Because of that concern, I would never fund a project which promises the moon but doesn't really have proven talent behind it. I support original ideas, or concepts which appeal to me, or projects from people I feel I can trust.

 

[WanderingWind]

Your post just seemed so silly. This isn't a matter of people having different opinions of which one will be proven right or wrong based on one or two games. There WILL be great Kickstarter funded games and there will be less good or even downright bad ones, none of them will prove the RATIONAL arguments of either side right or wrong (emphasis on rational, not the ones that sound like pointless whining) because they are already right or wrong. The risk of disappointment is ALWAYS present, it doesn't matter if it's a Kickstarter project that won't be released until 12-18 months from now or if it's a game that's 12-18 years old.

I really don't care what you find silly. Either enter the discussion, or don't. And you're saying nothing new in the rest of this. It's not a matter of fact if you believe one way or the other. When you say there WILL be something, you're making an educated guess. That's based heavily on opinion. If a major game is released that was Kickstarted, is critically and financially successful, then yes, that would give plenty of ammunition for saying Kickstarting a large project is a great idea. You're right that it won't quiet the strident detractors, but you can't ever please everybody, anyway.

Ultimately crowd sourcing is just another method of getting investment. The people who make such products remain the same, and the only difference is where the money comes from. Kickstarter is a platform which makes it easier for all interested parties to participate in this form of securing capital. I don't think there will ever be any actual data on whether Kickstarter makes better or worse games, because the means of investment does not really have any impact on the quality of output. It definitely has an impact on the subject matter, which is why it is used to fund more niche genres for games which publishers are less interested in funding commercially, but the actual quality will still depend on the people who make them - just like any other game.

Sure. But by it's very nature, it could allow for people with less of a grasp of the actual ability to create a game (and not nice looking proposals) backing. Conversely, it can allow people who have all the talent, and none of the financial connections to make it. I'm not saying there will be data on the quality of the game, but the success of major Kickstarted projects is something yet to really be determined. As a CRPG fan, Kickstarting seems like a major boon to a genre companies have run away from (except Spiderweb) in the past 10-15 years. I really sincerely hope they are able to get a few of these games to market, and that they're good. I just haven't seen enough proof either way. Wasteland will be a great indicator - a major studio, a well known IP, a highly visible campaign and development cycle. It won't solve anything conclusively, but it'll give either a great roadmap of what to avoid, or a great blueprint for Kickstarting success.

 

[Draft]

I'll Kickstart an Obsidian game just to see what kind of technical disaster they'll produce without a publisher trying to keep them honest.

 

[Durante]

Sure. But by it's very nature, it could allow for people with less of a grasp of the actual ability to create a game (and not nice looking proposals) backing. Conversely, it can allow people who have all the talent, and none of the financial connections to make it. I'm not saying there will be data on the quality of the game, but the success of major Kickstarted projects is something yet to really be determined. As a CRPG fan, Kickstarting seems like a major boon to a genre companies have run away from (except Spiderweb) in the past 10-15 years. I really sincerely hope they are able to get a few of these games to market, and that they're good. I just haven't seen enough proof either way. Wasteland will be a great indicator - a major studio, a well known IP, a highly visible campaign and development cycle. It won't solve anything conclusively, but it'll give either a great roadmap of what to avoid, or a great blueprint for Kickstarting success.

All you say here is true, but even if some large project fails I still can't see how it would make kickstarter a terrible thing for the industry. That sounds so very ominous. Also, considering the amount of terrible games produced with traditional funding, wouldn't that make it an even more "terrible thing" even if lots of kickstarter projects fail?

 

[BattleMonkey]

I don't get the hate for Kickstarter- its a means to fund a game's development. So if you're sold on the pitch, you can put down some money on the game before its released. I don't see how that is any worse than people who preorder games months in advance, not necessarily knowing how those games will turn out either.

People who preorder a game usually have seen lot of the actual game in screen shots, gameplay demos, videos, articles, impressions, etc. Kickstarter requires basically paying up front for just a concept of a game. So many games sound great, till we see actually see it and get impressions. Kickstarting involves paying out of blind faith essentially, pretty different from preordering a game.

 

[WanderingWind]

All you say here is true, but even if some large project fails I still can't see how it would make kickstarter a terrible thing for the industry. That sounds so very ominous. Also, considering the amount of terrible games produced with traditional funding, wouldn't that make it an even more "terrible thing" even if lots of kickstarter projects fail?

Because if people support a major project, and it fails abysmally, it could make those same people hesitant to jump in on another project. It could lead to a scenario of diminishing proceeds, which could lock out any of the people like inXILE or Obsidian from approaching it again. Of course, that's a worst case scenario. You can't judge things based on what the worst possible outcome could be.

Basically, there needs to be a major success, before there is a major failure - both of which I'm sure will happen given enough time.

 

[Durante]

Because if people support a major project, and it fails abysmally, it could make those same people hesitant to jump in on another project. It could lead to a scenario of diminishing proceeds, which could lock out any of the people like inXILE or Obsidian from approaching it again. Of course, that's a worst case scenario. You can't judge things based on what the worst possible outcome could be.

But even in that worst case, we'll just have the same situation as we had pre-kickstarter. That's why I think there's a bit of unnecessary scaremongering going on.

 

[WanderingWind]

But even in that worst case, we'll just have the same situation as we had pre-kickstarter. That's why I think there's a bit of unnecessary scaremongering going on.

Sure. But (AS A MOTHER!) as a CRPG fan, that scenario sucks. I want Kickstarter to be successful so we can have less influence of corporate marketers controlling what we get to play.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

People talk like nobody ever wasted money on something that didn't work out the way they wanted before kickstarter came along. But they also talk like no game was ever funded by fans before kickstarter came along so I guess it all balances out.

But people are often terrible about deciding what game projects sound exciting. Like with mods they all pile on in support of some dull project with a big team of people with no experience that happens to be using some big license without permission.

 

[Llyranor]

Kickstarter is WRPGs' last stand for me. They used to be my favorite genre - now I barely pay attention to them.

Yes, it's throwing out money on concepts alone that won't see the light of day for > 1 yr or more. BUT, these are concepts that I'm actually interested in, that have no tampering from publishers, that cater to the niche that is willing to shell out money for the games, that don't need to sell multi-millions to break even and thus don't need to pamper the lowest common denominator, that don't need to pretend to be shooters as per the flavor of the day, that are being designed by RPG devs that I trust way more than I trust publishers.

THAT's why I'm supporting Kickstarter projects.

I've wasted a lot of money on WRPGs in the last few years. I find that a lot more wasteful than what I've gladly spent on Kickstarter so far. Sure, a Kickstarter project may end up being a disaster. Compared to the majority of WRPGs in the last few years, that's still amazingly good odds.

 

[dude]

WRPG isn't even a genre anymore. It's just Hack n' Slash and FPSs with stats now.

EDIT: Oh, and TES, I guess.

 

[BeesEight]

- frame spending a normally trivial amount of money like the price of a drink or movie ticket as if it was the most important decision of their lives

I think this point needs to be emphasized. I paid - what? $15 - to kickstart Wasteland 2. That is a ludicrously small amount of money for a new release of a game in a market that is leaning more and more towards $60 and $70 price points for games. Not to mention the inevitable milking through ever growing day 1 DLC.

Not only is $15 pennies compared to these games but if the game truly flops it's nowhere near as bad as getting burned by buying into the day 1 hype of these AAA releases. So by supporting a kickstarter, not only am I getting a game at release at an unheard of price point but I'm also able to fund a game that I want and not one the publishers think I want.

If it disappoints then it disappoints and as a backer I'm out three boxes of cereal.

I'll Kickstart an Obsidian game just to see what kind of technical disaster they'll produce without a publisher trying to keep them honest.

I'm so glad you brought this back because I really wanted to touch on this but the thread moved away from the topic.

I can not abide these complaints about Obsidian's reputation for bugs. It drives me crazy that, as a developer, all they're known for is releasing broken games when Bethesda releases just as bug ridden messes as them but no one seems to care. Skyrim on PS3 wouldn't reportedly work after 20 hours. Yet as a company, Bethesda's reputation is never marred by these technical shortcomings.

But Obsidian? Ho boy! New Vegas was buggy but I had fewer bugs than Fallout 3 when I played through it. And Obsidian was contractually obligated to use the crappy Gamebryo engine which they didn't even make. I can only recall one crash while playing Alpha Protocol and the biggest bug in that game was an auto-save reload that cleared all the enemies in the level (which was easily fixed by just reloading the level - a pain to be sure but a technical disaster it was not). Neverwinter Nights 2 was technically solid and the biggest problem with KotOR II was that it was incomplete not that it was riddled with bugs.

I really can not understand all this vitriol that is directed at Obsidian for bugs when other major developers release just as glitchy games. It seems to me that fans just want to attack someone and since they dare not criticize the more popular studios they turn to the smaller, easier target.

 

[Discotheque]

Forreal. Bethesda is so much worse. Plus their games are shittier. Sick of those fools getting a free pass all the time.

 

[Dennis]

I will Kickstart any Obsidian game sight unseen. Just on principle.

And +1 on 'enough with the Obsidian bug talk'. They are not all that much worse than anybody else.

Reality is that for niche games from small developers or hugely complicated games (Arma series) you just have to accept more jank. Its a small price to pay for the uniqueness.

 

[jcm]

I will Kickstart any Obsidian game sight unseen. Just on principle.

And +1 on 'enough with the Obsidian bug talk'. They are not all that much worse than anybody else.

Reality is that for niche games from small developers or hugely complicated games (Arma series) you just have to accept more jank. Its a small price to pay for the uniqueness.

I think kickstarter is lame, but I'll buy it sight unseen if you kickstart it for me.

 

[Woo-Fu]

I can not abide these complaints about Obsidian's reputation for bugs. It drives me crazy that, as a developer, all they're known for is releasing broken games when Bethesda releases just as bug ridden messes as them but no one seems to care. Skyrim on PS3 wouldn't reportedly work after 20 hours. Yet as a company, Bethesda's reputation is never marred by these technical shortcomings.

But Obsidian? Ho boy! New Vegas was buggy but I had fewer bugs than Fallout 3 when I played through it. And Obsidian was contractually obligated to use the crappy Gamebryo engine which they didn't even make. I can only recall one crash while playing Alpha Protocol and the biggest bug in that game was an auto-save reload that cleared all the enemies in the level (which was easily fixed by just reloading the level - a pain to be sure but a technical disaster it was not). Neverwinter Nights 2 was technically solid and the biggest problem with KotOR II was that it was incomplete not that it was riddled with bugs.

I really can not understand all this vitriol that is directed at Obsidian for bugs when other major developers release just as glitchy games. It seems to me that fans just want to attack someone and since they dare not criticize the more popular studios they turn to the smaller, easier target.

I think your memory is clouded. Plenty of people give Bethesda plenty of shit. I know because I am one of them. Maybe if I'd actually liked KotOR and thus gave a shit about KotOR 2 I'd be all over Obsidian about buggy, unfinished games as well.

I give Obsidian a pass because they're the only company who has made good, western, traditional RPG gameplay in recent memory. Mask of the Betrayer was the best AD&D experience I've had in close to a decade. I suspect that many people give Bethesda a similar pass for the Elder Scrolls games since nobody else is making anything even close to those in this day and age.

When you provide a unique experience in a niche nobody else addresses you get a lot of slack. When you making a boring, derivative game like Dungeon Siege 3, you don't.

 

[duckroll]

Bethesda can't even release their big DLC on the PS3. That's how amazing their technical abilities are. Hurr hurr. #obsidianpride

 

[BeesEight]

I think your memory is clouded. Plenty of people give Bethesda plenty of shit. I know because I am one of them. Maybe if I'd actually liked KotOR and thus gave a shit about KotOR 2 I'd be all over Obsidian about buggy, unfinished games as well.

I give Obsidian a pass because they're the only company who has made good, western, traditional RPG gameplay in recent memory. Mask of the Betrayer was the best AD&D experience I've had in close to a decade. I suspect that many people will give Bethesda a similar pass for the Elder Scrolls games since nobody else is making anything even close to those in this day and age.

Nowhere to the same degree. Enter any Obsidian thread and most discussion is around how they can't develop a game that functions. Yes, you'll come across the odd decrier of Bethesda's buggy games but it's not proportional.

I suppose the biggest contributors to this are the review sites and games journalists themselves. Any review of an Obsidian game will inevitably be highlighting the technical flaws of their games but these same criticisms are seemingly absent from Bethesda's work.

 

[Emitan]

Mass Effect 2 is buggier than any Obsidian game I've played and it's a fucking corridor shooter.

 

[duckroll]

Nowhere to the same degree. Enter any Obsidian thread and most discussion is around how they can't develop a game that functions. Yes, you'll come across the odd decrier of Bethesda's buggy games but it's not proportional.

I suppose the biggest contributors to this are the review sites and games journalists themselves. Any review of an Obsidian game will inevitably be highlighting the technical flaws of their games but these same criticisms are seemingly absent from Bethesda's work.

I think part of it is also that Obsidian releases more games than Bethesda. Between Fallout 3 and Skyrim, Obsidian released Alpha Protocol, Fallout New Vegas, 4 fairly substantial DLCs for NV, and Dungeon Siege 3. Along the way, Aliens was also canned during this time. After Skyrim was released, Obsidian announced South Park as well as suffering another major cancellation.

These events in recent years simply paint Obsidian in more negative light, and they look like a struggling developer who has difficulty releasing anything "good" when people unfamiliar with the studio read about this stuff.

It doesn't help that their first project as Obsidian was KotOR2. I'm sure that soured a lot of people too.

 

[Corto]

I am not the only one trying to find money on forgotten places to channel to this kickstarter, ain't I?

 

[Sotha Sil]

Mass Effect 2 is buggier than any Obsidian game I've played and it's a fucking corridor shooter.

My choice would have been ME1; then again, I played New Vegas one year after release to avoid unpleasant surprises.

 

[Durante]

When you provide a unique experience in a niche nobody else addresses you get a lot of slack. When you making a boring, derivative game like Dungeon Siege 3, you don't.

But DS3 doesn't need slack in this regard -- it's bug-free and runs really well.

 

[Llyranor]

Some JE Sawyer stalking from yesterday:

http://twofoldsilence.diogenes-lamp.info/2012/09/the-black-hound-what-its-deal-was.html

http://forums.obsidian.net/blog/3/entry-167-building-better-worlds/

 

[Almighty]

1.

 

[Dresden]

Watcher, huh?

 

[duckroll]

I'm Watching this development very closely!

 

[Perkel]

I'm yet to experience any mayor bug in Obsidian game since Kotor2.
Even questioned F:NV was not as buggy as people made it to be.

It's more like FUD campain.

Each release from Betsheda is festival of bugs and glitches. Their second game was Daggerfall known as Buggerfall and yet people don't see problem with it. Only recently it hit them.

Double standards

 

[Trigger]

Watcher, huh?

Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG.

 

[Herla]

I hope this "Watcher" thing doesn't mean an elite order of something Bioware-style, but more of a condition.

 

[Pooya]

<!--. T . X X I T Y -->

<!-- There is no sleep for the Watcher. -->

from sourcecode again. it's definitely 'Eternity'

 

[Perkel]

Bazinga ! I can't wait for tommorow. It's be like christmas, birthday and weeding at the same time, doubled.

I'll be crying if they annouce DS4 or any mobile game.

 

[xenist]

To be honest I haven't had a non-beta game be buggy to me since Bioshock wouldn't start. And that was AVG being shitty.

New Vegas literally had one bug for me. One. I remember exactly because all the bitching beforehand had me extremely suspicious. Alpha Protocol, towards which I was equally suspicious, had none.

 

[Almighty]

I'm yet to experience any mayor bug in Obsidian game since Kotor2.
Even questioned F:NV was not as buggy as people made it to be.

It's more like FUD campain.

Each release from Betsheda is festival of bugs and glitches. Their second game was Daggerfall known as Buggerfall and yet people don't see problem with it. Only recently it hit them.

Double standards

Yeah I am in the same boat. In fact I might of just been lucky, but none of Obsidian's games were ever overly buggy to me. They seems about as buggy as all the other WRPG I played around the same time. Fallout NV was the worse out of all Obsidian's games. Even then though I had more bugs in Fallout 3 even after all the official patches then I did with FNV day 1.

Though I will admit I am awful at noticing little details so unless it is a huge bug like say in Fallout 3 were every time I tried to save it crashed the game I may not of noticed it.

 

[Stripes55]

<!--. T . X X I T Y -->

<!-- There is no sleep for the Watcher. -->

from sourcecode again.

Gotta be "ETERNITY" now. "IDENTITY" no longer works.

Plus, if the Watcher sees all of time (i.e. no sleep), then this seems to fit....

 

[pa22word]

Is anyone else getting heavy PST vibes now?

 

[Derrick01]

Mass Effect 2 is buggier than any Obsidian game I've played and it's a fucking corridor shooter.

That was ME3 for me, but the same principle since it was even more of a corridor shooter than 2 :lol

 

[Trigger]

I hope this "Watcher" thing doesn't mean an elite order of something Bioware-style, but more of a condition.

Maybe both? A position that places a heavy burden on a person? The earlier quotes imply a sort of helplessness.

 

[Almighty]

I'll be crying if they annouce DS4 or any mobile game.

I didn't even think of that.

If this turns out to be some f2p, social, mobile, or anything like that damn. That would suck more then if it was just DS4 for me.