• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Serellan LLC (Bringing back the Hardcore tactical shooter). Kickstarter [Up: Funded]

Brolic Gaoler

formerly Alienshogun
6947684153_1c58e74811_b.jpg


Serellan is a small indi team trying to bring back the tactical shooter. The guy in charge has had his hand in some other popular projects such as the original Ghost Recon, Halo: Reach and GRAW.

For those of you who have been itching and bitching for a "real" tactical shooter that you think the industry so desperately needs, here's your chance to make it happen.

Video on the website, should be watched.

ABOUT THIS PROJECT

For years, fans of tactical shooters have been crying out for someone to make a quality, hardcore, tactical shooter. But in contrast to these requests, game publishers eschew realism and tactics in exchange for ease of use and “cinematic” flavor. This campaign aims to see if my theory that real tactical shooters aren’t dead, and that enough people want one to justify the cost of development.

I’ve been in the video game industry working on best in class shooters for ten years now – designing and leading teams creating Tom Clancy games and Halo Reach. Now I’ve struck out and formed a new company for indie game development, Serellan LLC.

Why fund?

So Tim Schaffer beat me to the punch, but when turning an industry on its head, there’s plenty of room for multiple projects. And of course we aren’t talking about an adventure game here; we are talking a hardcore tactical shooter. And I’m pretty sure these fans are bigger, stronger, and have guns- and hopefully more money.

We have assembled a small team, all with years of video game industry experience and a specialty in shooters. We are focusing our initial development on a hardcore CQB tactical shooter.

This game will get back to the core of what is loved about the tac-shooter, featuring realistic weapon modeling, outfitting and commanding your squad, objective-based, non-linear missions set in real-world locations around the world, single player, co-op, and multiplayer.

Obviously, in this day and age, games cost more than a few hundreds of thousands of dollars to make. Engineers don’t work for Cheetos and free beer (although it helps). But it is enough to prove to our investors that the viability of the market, and set up the infrastructure for one of the really cool parts of the project: Crowdsourced development

What’s different about this project

Not only are you getting the game you have dreamed about over the past 10 years but our approach to development will be different. We aren’t just showing you inside the world of development, you will be participating.

We’ve created a set of tiered community levels for involvement – Silver, Gold, and Platinum – based on your level of support.

At the silver level, people will be able to have more influence on the game, such as voting for certain weapons, features, equipment, mission locations, etc.

At the gold level, supporters will have the opportunity to submit content, including weapon models, levels, and missions to go into the game. If the content meets the standards, it will be included in the final game and the submitter will be given full credit.

At the platinum level, supporters will have the opportunity to participate in creative meetings, visit the studio, and much more.

About Serellan LLC

Serellan LLC is an indie game development team based in Seattle, Washington, founded in 2011 by Christian Allen.

Christian Allen is an experienced AAA game designer and creative director. Prior to founding Serellan LLC, Christian served as Lead Designer, Creative Director, and Design Director of several AAA game projects for Ubisoft, Red Storm Entertainment, Microsoft, Bungie, and Warner Bros. Games. Christian’s titles include the award-winning Tom Clancy’s Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter and Halo: Reach. Titles he has contributed to have shipped over 15 million units, and earned over 20 “Game of the Year” awards in various categories.

Christian has contributed to several gaming publications, including the Game Development Essentials series. Christian has been on the faculty of the Game Developers Conference most years since 2005, and regularly speaks at colleges and universities on game development topics. He is also a consultant for Guidepoint Global (formerly Standard & Poor’s Society of Industry Leaders), one of the largest technology consulting services in the world.
 
You know, I find it funny and disconcerting at the same time that people will bitch about games like the new Ghost Recons or Rainbow Six: Vegas, but when an opportunity to interact with a developer who worked on the original Ghost Recon, and to really have a hand in making those games you keep saying you want arises, no one says anything.

I find this pretty sad. I can make a Ghost Recon thread and it will be trolled for days (and almost immediately), but make a thread about a company trying to give you what you want, and it gets ignored. That's pretty telling.
 
Should have made a thread called, "Tactical Shooters are Deeaaad!" and then slipped this news in there.

Crowdsourced indie is a bold choice, because shooter fans are really sensitive to production values. But if the mainstream sleeps on them they might be able to make up for numbers with fan loyalty.
 
Should have made a thread called, "Tactical Shooters are Deeaaad!" and then slipped this news in there.

Crowdsourced indie is a bold choice, because shooter fans are really sensitive to production values. But if the mainstream sleeps on them they might be able to make up for numbers with fan loyalty.

Yeah, I remember another team trying something like this, but they didn't have the experience this guy and his team does.
 
Interesting news, if it means that we'll have another important developer promoting Kickstarter as an alternative to corporate publishing and marketing.
 
Interesting news, if it means that we'll have another important developer promoting Kickstarter as an alternative to corporate publishing and marketing.

It's more than interesting news IMO, it's important that that "loud minority" that seems to do nothing but bitch about the lack of "realistic" games and keep screaming at companies to make games like "the original Ghost Recon" put their money where their mouth is.

Otherwise all they do is perpetuate the notion that gamers don't know what they want until they get it, think everything old is better than anything new, and will find a reason to bitch about anything.

Now is the time to actually make your opinion matter and help get the game "you" want made.
 
I'm in for $25. The lack of realistic tactical shooters is a Goddamn shame. That used to be one of the best genres. I want to spend 15 minutes carefully planning an attack and then peak around the wrong corner and get killed by a single bullet 30 seconds in.
 
2000$ in two hours, not bad. there is hope if major gaming news sites pick up the story.

but yes, "the death of tactical FPS and how we should revive it" title would get more views.
 
2000$ in two hours, not bad. there is hope if major gaming news sites pick up the story.

but yes, "the death of tactical FPS and how we should revive it" title would get more views.

All I can hope for is that the on-the-fly tactical controls from SWAT 4 don't get tossed by the wayside, and that these are the guys to bring back pre-planning/total team control from the halcyon days of Rainbow Six/Rogue Spear/Ghost Recon. if yes, they have my sword and my wallet by their side.
 
I find this pretty sad. I can make a Ghost Recon thread and it will be trolled for days (and almost immediately), but make a thread about a company trying to give you what you want, and it gets ignored. That's pretty telling.

Listen man, even if I was one of those people lamenting the lack of hardcore tactical shooters, I still wouldn't pledge any money.

It's an upstart running on experience and with no previous output that's attempting to segment, if not all, at least part of their development on the crowd sourcing model right out the gate. I would not be comfortable pledging towards something like that.
 
Listen man, even if I was one of those people lamenting the lack of hardcore tactical shooters, I still wouldn't pledge any money.

It's an upstart running on experience and with no previous output that's attempting to segment, if not all, at least part of their development on the crowd sourcing model right out the gate. I would not be comfortable pledging towards something like that.

Well you don't lose anything unless they meet their goal
 
I'm curious how the finances work out. The kickstarter is ostensibly to show interest in the title to prove to investors that it's worth putting money towards the project, which is a fine goal on paper - except that everyone who contributes to the kickstarter does so in a way that then takes them out of the pool of potential buyers. In other words, I don't see how it proves to investors that there's a *profit* to be made.

Taking it to an extreme example: Let's say that the game costs $3M to make, but it's so niche that only one person in the *world* is interested - but he's so interested that he puts $500,000 towards the project.

It's met the Kickstarter goals, which is good - but does it actually prove to the investors that it's worth putting up the remainder of the money? Some idea of what constitutes 'convincing the investors' would be very useful to know - because if the project meets the goals but not to a level that convinces the investors, the game will not be made.

I have a hunch he's actually hoping to get significantly more than the $200k target to bypass the investors entirely, because at the moment they're way too much of a wildcard in this whole scheme, and that worries me.

(Also, I reckon there's more adventure fans than tactical military shooter fans out there, guns or no guns)
 
Listen man, even if I was one of those people lamenting the lack of hardcore tactical shooters, I still wouldn't pledge any money.

It's an upstart running on experience and with no previous output that's attempting to segment, if not all, at least part of their development on the crowd sourcing model right out the gate. I would not be comfortable pledging towards something like that.

1. It's part of the incentive to donate.

2. The biggest contributors (those who fund production) for games having a say and influence on the game is not new to just this start up.

3. I doubt they would just let those donating "take over."

If "you're" going to bitch about the lack of hardcore shooters and not even donate a dollar or just some of your time supporting the endeavor, then "you're" part of the problem (IMO.)

Well, yeah. The part where they got the pot of money and how they may or may not use those resources is what worries me with these things.

This guy is legit, did you not read the page? Do you not know who he is? It's not a scam.
 
The 10k reward's a gun? Yeah, I can totally picture this guy making Tom Clancy games...

I hope they get to make it, but I won't be pledging. I'm saving myself for Wasteland 2 and Obsidian's mystery Kickstarter.
 
This thread needs Ghost Recon in it's title, seriously.

Anyway, I'm in for 25$.

It was heart breaking to see a project with as much potential as Ground Branch (another tactical shooter by Red Storm vets) run out of money and get shelved. I hope we can support Serellan so that this doesn't happen again.
 
Really not my kind of game, but I hope this gets made to continue to demonstrate that this sort of thing can work. Tailor games to a specific audience.
 
I'm curious how the finances work out. The kickstarter is ostensibly to show interest in the title to prove to investors that it's worth putting money towards the project, which is a fine goal on paper - except that everyone who contributes to the kickstarter does so in a way that then takes them out of the pool of potential buyers. In other words, I don't see how it proves to investors that there's a *profit* to be made.

Taking it to an extreme example: Let's say that the game costs $3M to make, but it's so niche that only one person in the *world* is interested - but he's so interested that he puts $500,000 towards the project.

It's met the Kickstarter goals, which is good - but does it actually prove to the investors that it's worth putting up the remainder of the money? Some idea of what constitutes 'convincing the investors' would be very useful to know - because if the project meets the goals but not to a level that convinces the investors, the game will not be made.

I have a hunch he's actually hoping to get significantly more than the $200k target to bypass the investors entirely, because at the moment they're way too much of a wildcard in this whole scheme, and that worries me.

(Also, I reckon there's more adventure fans than tactical military shooter fans out there, guns or no guns)

I think kickstarter generally isn't suited for mulitmillon dollar project. But getting couple hundered thousands dollars is feasible. And if you look at Double Fine, it didn't take that much people to reach the initial goal. If you already have like 30% of game fund it shouldn't be that hard to find the remaining sum, especially if you have necessary experience and your kickstarter shows there's a lot of people interested in the project. In reality, even with million dollar budget ( I doubt it would go beyond that) with successful kickstarter would only need to sell couple dozen thouands copies to break even. If the game is good it's pretty much sure deal it would sell that much. This would be one of the least risky project you could find.

Also, Kickstarter in no way should be the end of community funding the development. The money gathered at successful kickstarter campaign should be enough to reach alpha state and then you can start selling pre-orders with alpha access Minecraft-way.

And I wouldn't be so sure about there being more adventure fans in this case. I mean, that group is huge, but not all of them are LucasArts loving people. Myst fanbase completely dwarfs LucasArts one. Then there are Sierra fans and other groups. They're not some one community you can draw from. Bassicaly, AFAIK the classic tactical shooters outsold the hell out any adventure game LucasArts ever made and if you look at any modern military shooters, the hardcore servers and mods are always a huge portion of whole server line-up. So there's definitely market for this kind of games. It's propably the most underserved community right now. There are tons of adventure gamers being made today, heck..4X, racing sims, mech games etc are all getting their fix from multiple projects right now. But for tactical you only get Red Orchestra and Arma. Which both are great, but they do not fill the whole spectrum of tactical shooter genre. They are all wargames, while the classic CQB half of the genre is missing in action.

This reminds me that CYAN should do a kickstarter for news Myst. Seeing my favorite dev reduced to mobile porting house breaks my heart. This is the one project I would easily spend 200$ on kickstarter.
 
wow this is really exciting news, its good hear that a dev is attempting to bring out the old school style shooters and bring it some new life. the current trend of "bubble gum" shooters are becoming really repetitive, predictable and theres not much that differentiates them from the competition, interested to see how all this develops.
 
The game won't be completed for 16 months or so. That seems like a long time to just give someone your money


edit: I predict this will end badly....
 
The game won't be completed for 16 months or so. That seems like a long time to just give someone your money


edit: I predict this will end badly....

Playable alphas and so on.

And this won't end badly because nobody can lose anything in a Kickstarter scheme.

I have to say that prototype would generate a lot more interest than just a video of a dude.
 
Playable alphas and so on.

And this won't end badly because nobody can lose anything in a Kickstarter scheme.

I have to say that prototype would generate a lot more interest than just a video of a dude.
Ground Branch should do kickstarter, large portion of the game was already done and there would be plenty to show.
 
Just started reading Rainbox Six again and got a little bit nostalgic thinking about the old R6 PC games and how satisfying it was to execute a great plan and have it all work out.

That said, if this is going to be more Ghost Recon than R6, I will end up being a little bummed since I think ARMA has that Ghost Recon niche filled at least a little bit. There is really nothing that I know of that is similar to the old R6 games.

Also, during my musings I was wondering why I haven't seen a turn based strategy game (ala X-Com or Jagged Alliance) but with a Rainbow Six-esque backdrop and story. I think that could be incredible.
 
Also, during my musings I was wondering why I haven't seen a turn based strategy game (ala X-Com or Jagged Alliance) but with a Rainbow Six-esque backdrop and story. I think that could be incredible.
Yep. The topic seems perfect for such game. SWAT2 made an attempt at it, but it sucked and was real-time.
 
Can't say I can get on board with the idea of community funding a shooting game. I get that not all shooting games are the same, but damn if there aren't already a bunch out there. Tactical shooters included.
 
Single player and non linear havce my attention, more open buldings to clear please! Less single corriders to wander down, thanks!

Just started reading Rainbox Six again and got a little bit nostalgic thinking about the old R6 PC games and how satisfying it was to execute a great plan and have it all work out.

That said, if this is going to be more Ghost Recon than R6, I will end up being a little bummed since I think ARMA has that Ghost Recon niche filled at least a little bit. There is really nothing that I know of that is similar to the old R6 games.

Also, during my musings I was wondering why I haven't seen a turn based strategy game (ala X-Com or Jagged Alliance) but with a Rainbow Six-esque backdrop and story. I think that could be incredible.

OIld R6 and SWAT 3/4 were awesome, miss them.
Can't say I can get on board with the idea of community funding a shooting game. I get that not all shooting games are the same, but damn if there aren't already a bunch out there. Tactical shooters included.

What SP tactical shooters are out there at the moment?
 
Can't say I can get on board with the idea of community funding a shooting game. I get that not all shooting games are the same, but damn if there aren't already a bunch out there. Tactical shooters included.

I don't think you can name many genres that are more in need of community funded game than tactical shooters.
 
Also, Kickstarter in no way should be the end of community funding the development. The money gathered at successful kickstarter campaign should be enough to reach alpha state and then you can start selling pre-orders with alpha access Minecraft-way.

Alpha selling is probably the best way to go about things, I agree, but there's no actual mention of such a plan on the kickstarter page; that's my only real worry. What I really want to know before committing is:

How much money they need to get the project to completion.
How much money they need to at least reach the point of a sellable alpha.
What criteria investors would require to participate

My problem is this: What if they hit a situation where they've raised enough to meet the kickstarter goals, but their investors don't feel it's worth putting money into the project yet? They'll get the money from Kickstarter, but they can't actually *do* much with that money, unless $200k is enough to reach a playable/sellable alpha, and I'm not certain that it is.

(One additional thing: Licensed guns? There's a big focus on them in the kickstarter description, both jokily ("And we have more guns") and seriously ("Community picks what guns we include"). That suggests to me that they'll be looking at real-world guns, which would require licensing.)
 
Alpha selling is probably the best way to go about things, I agree, but there's no actual mention of such a plan on the kickstarter page; that's my only real worry. What I really want to know before committing is:

How much money they need to get the project to completion.
How much money they need to at least reach the point of a sellable alpha.
What criteria investors would require to participate

My problem is this: What if they hit a situation where they've raised enough to meet the kickstarter goals, but their investors don't feel it's worth putting money into the project yet? They'll get the money from Kickstarter, but they can't actually *do* much with that money, unless $200k is enough to reach a playable/sellable alpha, and I'm not certain that it is.

(One additional thing: Licensed guns? There's a big focus on them in the kickstarter description, both jokily ("And we have more guns") and seriously ("Community picks what guns we include"). That suggests to me that they'll be looking at real-world guns, which would require licensing.)

Re: Licensing guns, why is that? I know that is how it standws, but if I want to go make a movie about a war, I don't have to get colts permission to use some peacemakers. Is it becuase the likeness has to be remade? Whereas the movies use existinmg items?
 
Yep. The topic seems perfect for such game. SWAT2 made an attempt at it, but it sucked and was real-time.

It could use a tactical pause, but come on, it didn't suck! Best debriefings in the biz and ability to branch the plot with your decisions during missions made SWAT2 a game I have almost unlimited amount of love for.
 
LOL at giving the top tier an actual gun.

Receive a custom Beretta 92FS 9mm by Creative Director Christian Allen, with laser-engraved aluminum grips with the logo of the game on them. Only if allowed by state and federal law. Alternatively, a customized gas-blowback airsoft 92FS pistol if desired. Includes all previous rewards.
 
Cool to see another project trying to get going over Kickstarter. I didn't like the Ghost Recon games, nor do I particularly like military shooters, though, so I don't think I'll be supporting it. The idea of crowd sourcing design decisions doesn't seem particularly appealing, either.
 
The idea of crowd sourcing design decisions doesn't seem particularly appealing, either.

Yeah I can see that being a problem already. A quick look om their forums and it seems like half are there for a 3rd person ps3 socom clone while the rest want a first person pc shooter ala Rogue Sear/Raven Shield/Swat. Will be interesting to see how (if?) it progresses.
 
I seriously don't think that will be enough money to do what he wants to do. Especially if he wants feedback on what weapons etc. He will end up with a list of 100's of different weapons etc. :D

Best of luck to him!
 
Top Bottom