If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slashdot)   For every game developer *not* interested in making "Call of Duty 19: Assault on Disneyworld," Kickstarter is increasingly the way to go for funding   (slashdot.org) divider line 142
    More: Interesting, disneyworld, Kickstarter, Clinical study design, Indiegogo  
•       •       •

1450 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Sep 2013 at 10:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



142 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-09-26 10:11:04 AM  
Well I, for one, would love to go on the "It's a Small Small World" ride with a shotgun.
 
2013-09-26 10:16:07 AM  
It's all well and good until a big project that promises a lot goes tits up and everyone loses. Most people know it's a bit of a gamble to essentially pay up front, sight unseen, but a big failure will wobble everyones confidence for the future. Still, I hope it goes well.
 
2013-09-26 10:22:16 AM  
After contributing to Torment: Tides of Numenera, I decided to withhold support for any future Kickstarter projects for some time.

And then Mighty No. 9 was announced.

And then WayForward announced this project.
/God Damnit.
 
2013-09-26 10:30:15 AM  
Can it with the "For $10,000 we will make YOU a minor character in Forcemeat: OperationNarnia AND send you three "Step off fraggit" lapel pins AND name our next goldfish after your mom"  and just give me some got damned points on the profits like the old got damned days when an investor was an investor and not just a got damned fanboy!

GAAAAHHHHHHHH!
 
2013-09-26 10:33:06 AM  

brap: Can it with the "For $10,000 we will make YOU a minor character in Forcemeat: OperationNarnia AND send you three "Step off fraggit" lapel pins AND name our next goldfish after your mom"  and just give me some got damned points on the profits like the old got damned days when an investor was an investor and not just a got damned fanboy!

GAAAAHHHHHHHH!


uh...then just contact the development team directly and don't donate through kickstarter?
 
2013-09-26 10:46:59 AM  

Dimensio: After contributing to Torment: Tides of Numenera, I decided to withhold support for any future Kickstarter projects for some time.

And then Mighty No. 9 was announced.

And then WayForward announced this project.
/God Damnit.


I'm still letting money save up so I can contribute to Star Citizen.
 
2013-09-26 10:56:00 AM  
Just going to say this: The purpose of Kickstarter is to act as a means of philanthropy, and is a means to maintain the fixed, tangible nature of the best games.  The next developer who pledges a Kickstarter that features free-to-play or DLC elements gets a proper punch in the groin.
 
2013-09-26 10:56:23 AM  
Here's the magic games formula:

1) Spend as little as possible until your playtesting shows a positive return-on-investment via in-game monetization.

2) Dump all your money into marketing.

Game developers are now glorified money pumps. Anyone interested in doing anything even slightly out of the mainstream is going to have to go through alternate channels.
 
2013-09-26 10:56:45 AM  

brap: Can it with the "For $10,000 we will make YOU a minor character in Forcemeat: OperationNarnia AND send you three "Step off fraggit" lapel pins AND name our next goldfish after your mom"  and just give me some got damned points on the profits like the old got damned days when an investor was an investor and not just a got damned fanboy!

GAAAAHHHHHHHH!


"Thank you for your investment of $30. We will remit to you your 0.00000000000000000000000000000000003 percent of the profits, should there be any. Which there won't."
 
2013-09-26 10:57:23 AM  

brap: and just give me some got damned points on the profits


What if their project isn't designed to generate profit? I've contributed to a lot of kickstarters that simply wanted to produce a result and not have an ongoing product for sale.
 
2013-09-26 10:59:25 AM  

Mike_LowELL: The next developer who pledges a Kickstarter that features free-to-play or DLC elements gets a proper punch in the groin.


I just talked to a game dev friend of mine over the weekend who works for a F2P studio. He said that 100% of their profits come from 5% of the users, and they have some users who will literally spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a single F2P game.

They really just need three things to make a game viable: a few "whales" willing to spend tons of money, a small userbase of paying players, and enough free players to make it fun for the first two categories.

Remember: if you're not paying, YOU are the product.
 
2013-09-26 11:01:06 AM  

Mike_LowELL: Just going to say this: The purpose of Kickstarter is to act as a means of philanthropy, and is a means to maintain the fixed, tangible nature of the best games.  The next developer who pledges a Kickstarter that features free-to-play or DLC elements gets a proper punch in the groin.


Hahahahaha, funny you mention that: Backers Livid Over Carmageddon Kickstarter
 
2013-09-26 11:01:58 AM  
We've gone from complaining about day-one DLC to giving money to companies for games that may or may not ever exist.
 
2013-09-26 11:02:48 AM  

Fubini: I just talked to a game dev friend of mine over the weekend who works for a F2P studio. He said that 100% of their profits come from 5% of the users, and they have some users who will literally spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a single F2P game.


Yup.  And it's a profoundly toxic game model, because profitability is not predicated on any innate quality of the game, where hundreds of thousands of players have to make that vote of quality.  It's predicated on securing a large enough audience and milking the compulsive players who are spending money based on more simplistic urges.  There's really no argument that free-to-play gives you a better game.  It only gives players a less expensive game.
 
2013-09-26 11:07:08 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: We've gone from complaining about day-one DLC to giving money to companies for games that may or may not ever exist.


While Kickstarter is a risky venture,  getting funded places a legal obligation on the entity to complete the project. That doesn't mean that you're going to get what you contributed for, and it certainly doesn't guarantee that you'll be able to get their money back. But it's not a "this might happen if I give the money" situation. Getting funded does mean that the game  should exist.
 
2013-09-26 11:07:31 AM  

scottydoesntknow: Hahahahaha, funny you mention that: Backers Livid Over Carmageddon Kickstarter


And that farkface who responded has the gall to claim that the expansion pack model in any way resembles DLC.  What a jackass.  Expansion packs weren't simply superior because they gave you significantly more bang for your buck.  Expansion packs create a clear, titled, aesthetically-significant revision point that players can return to if the expansion pack is not satisfactory.  So rather than forcing players to pick and choose which content they want to consider "canon" or part of their play experience, they can right back to The King of Fighters '98, or The King of Fighters 2000, or XI, or XIII, or whichever version of the game that they want to play.  The player doesn't have to worry about a lack of standardization in the house rules.
 
2013-09-26 11:14:46 AM  
I think I would want to save disneyworld for a fallout game, but that's just me.
 
2013-09-26 11:15:07 AM  

t3knomanser: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: We've gone from complaining about day-one DLC to giving money to companies for games that may or may not ever exist.

While Kickstarter is a risky venture,  getting funded places a legal obligation on the entity to complete the project. That doesn't mean that you're going to get what you contributed for, and it certainly doesn't guarantee that you'll be able to get their money back. But it's not a "this might happen if I give the money" situation. Getting funded does mean that the game  should exist.


I was under the impression that Kickstarter in no way polices that. I guess we'll see what happens when Tim Schafer fails to release his game.
 
2013-09-26 11:15:37 AM  

brap: Can it with the "For $10,000 we will make YOU a minor character in Forcemeat: OperationNarnia AND send you three "Step off fraggit" lapel pins AND name our next goldfish after your mom"  and just give me some got damned points on the profits like the old got damned days when an investor was an investor and not just a got damned fanboy!

GAAAAHHHHHHHH!


Then don't invest through Kickstarter.
 
2013-09-26 11:15:59 AM  
cdn.steamcommunity.com
 
2013-09-26 11:17:19 AM  
I usually dislike first-person shooter games due to their rampaging violence - but I do admit to getting a wee bit of a boner about this one.
 
2013-09-26 11:19:37 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I was under the impression that Kickstarter in no way polices that. I guess we'll see what happens when Tim Schafer fails to release his game.


Kickstarter doesn't enforce that, no. They have no mechanism with which to enforce that. But it is their policy, and it is in the contract with project creators.
 
2013-09-26 11:19:58 AM  

gnosis301: brap: Can it with the "For $10,000 we will make YOU a minor character in Forcemeat: OperationNarnia AND send you three "Step off fraggit" lapel pins AND name our next goldfish after your mom"  and just give me some got damned points on the profits like the old got damned days when an investor was an investor and not just a got damned fanboy!

GAAAAHHHHHHHH!

Then don't invest through Kickstarter.


yeah, i feel like they should incorporate equity into the project through kickstarter, otherwise it's just charity for a gift bag.

/ perhaps I'll kickstart my corporation that does stuff, and, for this amount of donation, you can be a (minority) SHAREHOLDER (with no voting rights, because i either know who i'm getting in bed with, or I wear a condom)!
 
2013-09-26 11:21:39 AM  

brap: Can it with the "For $10,000 we will make YOU a minor character in Forcemeat: OperationNarnia AND send you three "Step off fraggit" lapel pins AND name our next goldfish after your mom"  and just give me some got damned points on the profits like the old got damned days when an investor was an investor and not just a got damned fanboy!



Oh, I'm sorry you thought spending money was the same thing as investing.  You won't believe this, but I've seen people pay $2000 for a brick.  Just because it will have their name on it forever in a park they cared about.  How dare the park not give them a cut of the profits for that.
 
2013-09-26 11:21:53 AM  

pute kisses like a man: gnosis301: brap: Can it with the "For $10,000 we will make YOU a minor character in Forcemeat: OperationNarnia AND send you three "Step off fraggit" lapel pins AND name our next goldfish after your mom"  and just give me some got damned points on the profits like the old got damned days when an investor was an investor and not just a got damned fanboy!

GAAAAHHHHHHHH!

Then don't invest through Kickstarter.

yeah, i feel like they should incorporate equity into the project through kickstarter, otherwise it's just charity for a gift bag.

/ perhaps I'll kickstart my corporation that does stuff, and, for this amount of donation, you can be a (minority) SHAREHOLDER (with no voting rights, because i either know who i'm getting in bed with, or I wear a condom)!


I think of it as a pre-preorder.
 
2013-09-26 11:24:42 AM  

t3knomanser: brap: and just give me some got damned points on the profits

What if their project isn't designed to generate profit? I've contributed to a lot of kickstarters that simply wanted to produce a result and not have an ongoing product for sale.


There is a difference between venture capital and crowd funding for that reason. You're basically making a donation on the promise that these guys are going to do something you want.
The game is the only "profit" in these particular kickstarter deals, and its all based on your faith in the guy running the show.

How I see it: I buy lots of games that aren't exactly what I want to play or turn out to be a bad investment (Like Assassins creed.  Wasn't bad, just wasn't for me).
I could pay for games in advance that are exactly what I'm looking for (like star citizen and Takedown).
Its a risk either way, but if I trust the staff then its a risk I'm willing to take.

/And if companies make a habit of delivering on their kickstarter promises, they stand to rake in even more money for their second and third title.
/If you think Star citizen is Epic, wait till he passes the hat around for his sequel.
 
2013-09-26 11:26:48 AM  
I don't care what you say, I would play the shiat out of Call of Duty: Assault on Disneyworld.
 
2013-09-26 11:29:07 AM  

pute kisses like a man: [cdn.steamcommunity.com image 850x189]


Greenlight is a means to acquire funding?
 
2013-09-26 11:30:36 AM  

pute kisses like a man: gnosis301: brap: Can it with the "For $10,000 we will make YOU a minor character in Forcemeat: OperationNarnia AND send you three "Step off fraggit" lapel pins AND name our next goldfish after your mom"  and just give me some got damned points on the profits like the old got damned days when an investor was an investor and not just a got damned fanboy!

GAAAAHHHHHHHH!

Then don't invest through Kickstarter.

yeah, i feel like they should incorporate equity into the project through kickstarter, otherwise it's just charity for a gift bag.

/ perhaps I'll kickstart my corporation that does stuff, and, for this amount of donation, you can be a (minority) SHAREHOLDER (with no voting rights, because i either know who i'm getting in bed with, or I wear a condom)!


Project C.A.R.S. is crowd funded and people who buy in at a certain level will share some of the profits.

The budget for the game was around $7 million.

www.wmdportal.com www.wmdportal.com
Those are all in-game photos, not "Photo Modes" like other games.

Gran Turismo's $80 million budget makes you wonder what they actually did with the money.
 
2013-09-26 11:32:55 AM  

Glitchwerks: Gran Turismo's $80 million budget makes you wonder what they actually did with the money.


Official licensing isn't cheap.
 
2013-09-26 11:33:11 AM  

brap: Can it with the "For $10,000 we will make YOU a minor character in Forcemeat: OperationNarnia AND send you three "Step off fraggit" lapel pins AND name our next goldfish after your mom"  and just give me some got damned points on the profits like the old got damned days when an investor was an investor and not just a got damned fanboy!

GAAAAHHHHHHHH!


This might be relevant to your interests.
 
2013-09-26 11:33:44 AM  

brap: Can it with the "For $10,000 we will make YOU a minor character in Forcemeat: OperationNarnia AND send you three "Step off fraggit" lapel pins AND name our next goldfish after your mom"  and just give me some got damned points on the profits like the old got damned days when an investor was an investor and not just a got damned fanboy!

GAAAAHHHHHHHH!


LOL, I didn't think anyone had figured kickstarter out yet, but looks like there is one.  Screw Kickstarter.  If your project is worth any thing at all you don't need to beg for money on the internet.  Kickstarter is basically panhandling.
 
2013-09-26 11:35:09 AM  

RedPhoenix122: I'm still letting money save up so I can contribute to Star Citizen.


Same here.  I want to donate more than just the ~$40 I'd be comfortable dumping in at one time. So I'm socking away a few dollars here and there towards a future purchase.  I've got plenty of time. It doesn't even go playable alpha for quite a while.

Also, I contributed to the Shadowrun Returns kickstarter. They sent out regular updates on what they were doing and were generally really cool and transparent about it all. And I continue to get updates about what they're working on with the game.  And I got some cool merch out of it, too.  AND the game was pretty fun.

This trend lately of early access games just takes me back to the days when I used to beta test a lot of games.  It's a really fun experience to watch a game mature and change as development progresses.  And I appreciate the ability to vote with my wallet on games I want to play.  I mean, I could before. But now I can do so earlier in the process.
 
2013-09-26 11:36:23 AM  

NicktheSmoker: brap: Can it with the "For $10,000 we will make YOU a minor character in Forcemeat: OperationNarnia AND send you three "Step off fraggit" lapel pins AND name our next goldfish after your mom"  and just give me some got damned points on the profits like the old got damned days when an investor was an investor and not just a got damned fanboy!

GAAAAHHHHHHHH!

LOL, I didn't think anyone had figured kickstarter out yet, but looks like there is one.  Screw Kickstarter.  If your project is worth any thing at all you don't need to beg for money on the internet.  Kickstarter is basically panhandling.


This is clearly the voice of someone who has never had to deal with a publisher for anything in their life.  The moment a focus group is brought to bear on a creative work, 100% of its creative value is unmade.
 
2013-09-26 11:38:00 AM  

ikanreed: This is clearly the voice of someone who has never had to deal with a publisher for anything in their life.  The moment a focus group is brought to bear on a creative work, 100% of its creative value is unmade.


This.
 
2013-09-26 11:41:43 AM  

t3knomanser: Glitchwerks: Gran Turismo's $80 million budget makes you wonder what they actually did with the money.

Official licensing isn't cheap.


PCars has most of the same licenses.  The expensive licenses are Ferrari, Porsche, and Lamborghini.  Even then, they are only around $1 million.
 
2013-09-26 11:41:55 AM  

Honest Bender: RedPhoenix122: I'm still letting money save up so I can contribute to Star Citizen.

Same here.  I want to donate more than just the ~$40 I'd be comfortable dumping in at one time. So I'm socking away a few dollars here and there towards a future purchase.  I've got plenty of time. It doesn't even go playable alpha for quite a while.

Also, I contributed to the Shadowrun Returns kickstarter. They sent out regular updates on what they were doing and were generally really cool and transparent about it all. And I continue to get updates about what they're working on with the game.  And I got some cool merch out of it, too.  AND the game was pretty fun.

This trend lately of early access games just takes me back to the days when I used to beta test a lot of games.  It's a really fun experience to watch a game mature and change as development progresses.  And I appreciate the ability to vote with my wallet on games I want to play.  I mean, I could before. But now I can do so earlier in the process.


I'll never understand early access. You are literally paying for an unfinished game, and in some cases more than it will cost at retail.
 
2013-09-26 11:43:34 AM  
If I can use an MP-9 while wearing Mickey ears? Shut up and take my money.
 
2013-09-26 11:43:37 AM  
There's only one kickstarter I'm really interested in.

wac.7725.edgecastcdn.net
 
2013-09-26 11:44:49 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: t3knomanser: Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: We've gone from complaining about day-one DLC to giving money to companies for games that may or may not ever exist.

While Kickstarter is a risky venture,  getting funded places a legal obligation on the entity to complete the project. That doesn't mean that you're going to get what you contributed for, and it certainly doesn't guarantee that you'll be able to get their money back. But it's not a "this might happen if I give the money" situation. Getting funded does mean that the game  should exist.

I was under the impression that Kickstarter in no way polices that. I guess we'll see what happens when Tim Schafer fails to release his game.


You're right, Kickstarter doesn't actually police that.  However, when you create a project, you are signing a contract that you will either (a) deliver the rewards you promised in the campaign, or (b) refund all backer funds.  So, technically, somebody who fails to deliver could set themselves up for a massive class-action suit.
 
2013-09-26 11:48:20 AM  

ikanreed: Oh, I'm sorry you thought spending money was the same thing as investing.  You won't believe this, but I've seen people pay $2000 for a brick.  Just because it will have their name on it forever in a park they cared about.  How dare the park not give them a cut of the profits for that.


I was being slightly dramatic for effect but your reaction was funnier to me than you will ever know.  But for debates sake, I can write off the $2,000 I give to a park for a brick.  I can't write off the $2,000 I give a guy for making the video game Elflord's Chunky Castle.
 
2013-09-26 11:50:48 AM  

ikanreed: brap: Can it with the "For $10,000 we will make YOU a minor character in Forcemeat: OperationNarnia AND send you three "Step off fraggit" lapel pins AND name our next goldfish after your mom"  and just give me some got damned points on the profits like the old got damned days when an investor was an investor and not just a got damned fanboy!


Oh, I'm sorry you thought spending money was the same thing as investing.  You won't believe this, but I've seen people pay $2000 for a brick.  Just because it will have their name on it forever in a park they cared about.  How dare the park not give them a cut of the profits for that.



The only thing worse than giving a bunch of corporate suits a financial interest and creative voice in a project is giving thousands of random gamers financial interest and creative voice in a project.

When you Kickstart, you're saying, "Here's some money, I want to see this happen, and I want to be involved to a certain extent." You're not saying, "Here's some money. This better succeed because I want to make some money off you."

Giving backers points off the game's revenues would more or less just trade one unsuitable master for another... or, rather, a thousand others.
 
2013-09-26 11:55:24 AM  

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: I'll never understand early access. You are literally paying for an unfinished game, and in some cases more than it will cost at retail.


Let's leave price out of this for a minute since that can vary considerably from title to title and it's a subjective metric anyway.

Early access gives you the chance to play a game well before you would otherwise be able.  Let's take a popular game as an example: Kerbal Space Program.
When KSP was first playable, there wasn't a whole lot there.  There's arguably still not a whole lot there. But many people, myself included, spend hours upon hours playing the game and having a blast.  The developers are able to run their ideas by us and receive feedback, thus making the game better.

Everybody gives a little, everyone gets a little, and the entire process is made more enjoyable than it otherwise would be.

Obviously that's not going to be the experience with every title every time, but that's what we're all hoping for. That's the appeal of early access.
 
2013-09-26 12:00:00 PM  
If I were a game developer or film producer I would DEFINATELY go the Kickstarter route.  I'm just saying the fanboys (which I am completely one of) are really doing themselves/ourselves a disservice by lowering their.our expectations from "Sink or swim, I would like to be part of this" to "Sink or swim please take my money, have no real obligation to me, and use me as a Welcome mat."
 
2013-09-26 12:00:00 PM  
Mike_LowELL: ...There's really no argument that free-to-play gives you a better game.  It only gives players a less expensive game.

Without debating that (because let's face it, it's true), since the expansion of the F2P model in the West and the easing of the social stigmas attached to it ("F2P is P2W" and "F2P means failure") there's been a lot more competition in the F2P market. Demand for games is relatively inelastic given there are a finite number of gamers with diverse interests and expectation, and if there's one thing we've seen it's that the supply of games is very elastic -- F2P developers and publishers have to compete amongst each other for gamers, especially the free ones, and that means they have to create an F2P environment that has the highest value to free players (to lure them in and retain them), but remains profitable.

Granted, the market and industry haven't really reached a point of equilibrium with the F2P model yet, but it's getting there and increased competition will expedite the matter. F2P also happens to be judged frequently as a revenue model by its  worst examples (like, in today's market TOR) without regard for some of its  best (like, WoT[1] or TERA).

[1] World of Tanks gets special mention here, because it is a great example of the market-based improvement of the F2P model. It was always F2P, but the premium equipment and ammo wasn't purchasable with silver until War Thunder was announced and was about to go into beta. Knowing competition was coming down the pike, they made premium equipment purchasable with silver.
 
2013-09-26 12:01:36 PM  

brap: ikanreed: Oh, I'm sorry you thought spending money was the same thing as investing.  You won't believe this, but I've seen people pay $2000 for a brick.  Just because it will have their name on it forever in a park they cared about.  How dare the park not give them a cut of the profits for that.

I was being slightly dramatic for effect but your reaction was funnier to me than you will ever know.  But for debates sake, I can write off the $2,000 I give to a park for a brick.  I can't write off the $2,000 I give a guy for making the video game Elflord's Chunky Castle.


Yeah, writing off $2000, you can pay $600 less in taxes makes REAL business sense there, brap.  People can genuinely appreciate something and want to see it succeed without it being "charity" per se.  For example, I've seen people do the brick thing with a for-profit sports venue, too.  It was $250, not $2000, like the park, but people with money spend it on what they care about.
 
2013-09-26 12:03:48 PM  

brap: If I were a game developer or film producer I would DEFINATELY go the Kickstarter route.  I'm just saying the fanboys (which I am completely one of) are really doing themselves/ourselves a disservice by lowering their.our expectations from "Sink or swim, I would like to be part of this" to "Sink or swim please take my money, have no real obligation to me, and use me as a Welcome mat."


As opposed to spending 3x as much on the release(or just before the release) of a AAA title, and getting nothing extra for it sense the publishers, marketers, and retailers take $40 of your $60 instead.

The current model just puts loads of money into the hands of advertisers and executives.
 
2013-09-26 12:05:09 PM  

Honest Bender: Early access gives you the chance to play a game well before you would otherwise be able.  Let's take a popular game as an example: Kerbal Space Program.


KSP also had the added benefit that with early access came purchasing the game at a much cheaper price than it will be when it goes into final release.
 
2013-09-26 12:14:09 PM  
If COD is such a bad game why does it make so much money? Clearly activision is give a lot of people what they want because it's a hit every farking year.  The original COD was great. I still remember playing the last mission where you are carrying the Russian flag through Berlin. The new ones aren't much different from that once everything is said and done.  Just because we as adults have moved past those games doesn't mean that they are no longer good games.

Half the COD haters are just bad at MP and hate the game because some 13 year old called them a f****t  for taking the bomb to the wrong location that one time.  I'm pretty terrible at it myself and haven't played the newest ones but I don't hate them.  I just don't play games that don't appeal to me.

/I'm going to be digging through the 'box of PC doom' when I get home looking for my old COD disks
 
2013-09-26 12:18:30 PM  

Egoy3k: If COD is such a bad game why does it make so much money? Clearly activision is give a lot of people what they want because it's a hit every farking year.  The original COD was great. I still remember playing the last mission where you are carrying the Russian flag through Berlin. The new ones aren't much different from that once everything is said and done.  Just because we as adults have moved past those games doesn't mean that they are no longer good games.

Half the COD haters are just bad at MP and hate the game because some 13 year old called them a f****t  for taking the bomb to the wrong location that one time.  I'm pretty terrible at it myself and haven't played the newest ones but I don't hate them.  I just don't play games that don't appeal to me.

/I'm going to be digging through the 'box of PC doom' when I get home looking for my old COD disks


Why would you store the discs for Call of Duty in the DOOM game box?
 
2013-09-26 12:18:32 PM  
I am someone that knows nothing of philanthropy, clearly has never had to deal with a publisher for anything in my life, and has never had anything creative put in front of a focus group.

Sing me another song for you are CLEARLY the Piano man to end all Piano men.
 
2013-09-26 12:23:16 PM  

Egoy3k: If COD is such a bad game why does it make so much money? Clearly activision is give a lot of people what they want because it's a hit every farking year.  The original COD was great. I still remember playing the last mission where you are carrying the Russian flag through Berlin. The new ones aren't much different from that once everything is said and done.  Just because we as adults have moved past those games doesn't mean that they are no longer good games.

Half the COD haters are just bad at MP and hate the game because some 13 year old called them a f****t  for taking the bomb to the wrong location that one time.  I'm pretty terrible at it myself and haven't played the newest ones but I don't hate them.  I just don't play games that don't appeal to me.

/I'm going to be digging through the 'box of PC doom' when I get home looking for my old COD disks


Nah, it's that the series really hasn't changed or evolved in any way since COD 4: Modern Warfare.  They keep on cranking out the same game ever since, with slightly shinier graphics and an even more heavily-scripted hand-holding single-player campaign.  Plus the inevitable 13-year-olds calling people f****ts.

And popularity is a poor measure of quality.  Unless you think Justin Bieber is a great musician and McDonald's makes the best hamburgers on the planet, of course.
 
2013-09-26 12:24:19 PM  

Egoy3k: If COD is such a bad game why does it make so much money? Clearly activision is give a lot of people what they want because it's a hit every farking year.  The original COD was great. I still remember playing the last mission where you are carrying the Russian flag through Berlin. The new ones aren't much different from that once everything is said and done.  Just because we as adults have moved past those games doesn't mean that they are no longer good games.

Half the COD haters are just bad at MP and hate the game because some 13 year old called them a f****t  for taking the bomb to the wrong location that one time.  I'm pretty terrible at it myself and haven't played the newest ones but I don't hate them.  I just don't play games that don't appeal to me.

/I'm going to be digging through the 'box of PC doom' when I get home looking for my old COD disks


Yes, because the amount of money something makes is a direct reflection of its quality.

www.aceshowbiz.com

upload.wikimedia.org

img2-2.timeinc.net

The original CoD games were fun. CoD4 was amazing. The last 4 have basically been the exact same crap with different colored sprinkles on top.
 
2013-09-26 12:25:25 PM  

Dimensio: Egoy3k: If COD is such a bad game why does it make so much money? Clearly activision is give a lot of people what they want because it's a hit every farking year.  The original COD was great. I still remember playing the last mission where you are carrying the Russian flag through Berlin. The new ones aren't much different from that once everything is said and done.  Just because we as adults have moved past those games doesn't mean that they are no longer good games.

Half the COD haters are just bad at MP and hate the game because some 13 year old called them a f****t  for taking the bomb to the wrong location that one time.  I'm pretty terrible at it myself and haven't played the newest ones but I don't hate them.  I just don't play games that don't appeal to me.

/I'm going to be digging through the 'box of PC doom' when I get home looking for my old COD disks

Why would you store the discs for Call of Duty in the DOOM game box?


No the 'box of PC doom' is the box of adapters, connectors, system discs, broken hardware, possibly broken hardware, functional but outdated hardware, assorted screws, nuts, bolts, and other miscellaneous crap that seems to collect in every PC builders closet.
 
2013-09-26 12:26:11 PM  

Egoy3k: If COD is such a bad game why does it make so much money?


That's not the issue.  The real issue is that some players want different games that aren't being made via publisher funding, and Kickstarter is a means of getting that funding.
 
2013-09-26 12:26:50 PM  

Egoy3k: If COD is such a bad game why does it make so much money?


The current list of top-ten grossing films of all time includes two James Cameron films and a Michael Bay film. Even inflation-adjusted it still includes those two Cameron films. Revenue is  not an indication of quality.

Beyond that, CoD was never a "mega-successful" franchise until Modern Warfare. After that, like the aforementioned films it's highly successful  because it's garbage. The gameplay is extremely superficial, there haven't been any true innovations or engine upgrades in the series since CoD4, the plots trend toward jinogistic "Tom Clancy on mushrooms" nonsense, all melding together to create a pandering gestalt targeted preciseely at the lowest-common denominator -- in other words, the perfect formula for financial success.
 
2013-09-26 12:29:12 PM  
ITT: butthurt morons who don't understand why video games are made.

/it's to make money
 
2013-09-26 12:31:56 PM  

Egoy3k: ITT: butthurt morons who don't understand why video games are made.

/it's to make money


There are easier ways to make money.  There must be a different reason.
 
2013-09-26 12:32:56 PM  

Egoy3k: ITT: butthurt morons who don't understand why video games are made.

/it's to make money


And Kickstarter provides a way for developers to make money without releasing lowest-common-denominator garbage.  Hence why it's awesome.
 
2013-09-26 12:33:35 PM  
Kickstarter is just a way of spreading out the risk of capital investment by bringing in a large number of smaller investors who risk less, with the tradeoff being that in the case of success they're immediately bought out by contract instead of retaining a partial ownership of the venture.

This isn't actually new or particularly revolutionary just because it's got a better media presence than usual, community-level projects run like that all the time.  I mean, it is a good model to use for video games because it does boil down to shifting a lot of your income to pre-sales far enough in advance that you actually need the money, and because individual end-users are where the profit comes from anyhow... but it still doesn't merit 3000 headlines a week.
 
2013-09-26 12:34:12 PM  

Egoy3k: ITT: butthurt morons who don't understand why video games are made.

/it's to make money


Oh, and another thing: I guess this means you do, indeed, think McDonald's makes the best burgers on Earth.  They must, right?  They make more money than any other burger restaurant, and the goal of making burgers is to make money, isn't it?
 
2013-09-26 12:35:44 PM  

Egoy3k: ITT: butthurt morons who don't understand why video games are made.

/it's to make money


I'm sorry, but who said they weren't about money? That's not the point. You equated quality with profits. We showed you that just because something is profitable, that doesn't necessarily make it good.
 
2013-09-26 12:36:25 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Kickstarter is just a way of spreading out the risk of capital investment by bringing in a large number of smaller investors who risk less, with the tradeoff being that in the case of success they're immediately bought out by contract instead of retaining a partial ownership of the venture.

This isn't actually new or particularly revolutionary just because it's got a better media presence than usual, community-level projects run like that all the time.  I mean, it is a good model to use for video games because it does boil down to shifting a lot of your income to pre-sales far enough in advance that you actually need the money, and because individual end-users are where the profit comes from anyhow... but it still doesn't merit 3000 headlines a week.


Actually, it is particularly revolutionary, because it takes a model that practical constraints previously limited to small geographic areas and uses technology to make it available on a wide-ranging (not quite global, but pretty close) basis.  That is a major game changer, since, for example, not every fan of adventure games lives in the greater Seattle area.
 
2013-09-26 12:39:24 PM  

Slaxl: It's all well and good until a big project that promises a lot goes tits up and everyone loses. Most people know it's a bit of a gamble to essentially pay up front, sight unseen, but a big failure will wobble everyones confidence for the future. Still, I hope it goes well.


Actually, that's already happened.

Turns out that people are fairly good at separating the failure of a project from the failure of the platform.
 
2013-09-26 12:40:52 PM  
I can't wait for Wasteland 2!!!!
 
2013-09-26 12:51:15 PM  

Egoy3k: ITT: butthurt morons who don't understand why video games are made.

/it's to make money


So your belief, as a consumer, is that you should just blindly lap up whatever bullshiat is placed infront of you? With no complaints? I'm not exactly anti-establishment, but fark that shiat. If a company is churning out increasingly terrible games, why would we continue to fork over money? This is all hypothetical, of course, because CoD has such a hard-wired audience now, I'm pretty sure they could go the better part of the next decade releasing only Sinead O'Conner CDs in Call of Duty packaging and still not lose a dime in projected sales, but c'mon! There's a better way to do this shiat, so I'm going to continue to give my money to game companies that actually make quality products. Because when a company can make quality products that ALSO beat the pants off of EA and Activision's FPS Factory Games in sales, everyone wins.
 
2013-09-26 01:21:43 PM  
Call of Duty 19: Assault on Disneyworld

You know, I'd actually play this...
 
2013-09-26 01:27:26 PM  
The Embers of Caerus one was my favorite.

"Okay, so, we need some money, so we can make a prototype, so we can show it to investors, so maybe we can get enough money to actually make a game someday."

SOUNDS LEGIT!

I check in on it every now and then, and it's pretty clearly already in the vaporware death-spiral.  News posts have stopped, previously active "employees" (volunteers) have quietly vanished (or publicly stepped down because they've found a real job and don't have the time anymore).

The best part are the idiots on the forum who are drop-dead certain that it's going to revolutionize the industry.
 
2013-09-26 01:29:18 PM  
Er... got distracted.

China White Tea: The best parts are the idiots on the forum who are drop-dead certain that it's going to revolutionize the industry,  and the head-developer doing weird shiat like selling a home-made longbow on ebay to raise more capital

.
 
2013-09-26 01:33:53 PM  
Call of Duty 19: Assault on Disneyworld

Out of curiosity, if you add up all the CoD games ever released, what number are we on now?
 
2013-09-26 01:35:33 PM  

Egoy3k: If COD is such a bad game why does it make so much money? Clearly activision is give a lot of people what they want because it's a hit every farking year.  The original COD was great. I still remember playing the last mission where you are carrying the Russian flag through Berlin. The new ones aren't much different from that once everything is said and done.  Just because we as adults have moved past those games doesn't mean that they are no longer good games.

Half the COD haters are just bad at MP and hate the game because some 13 year old called them a f****t  for taking the bomb to the wrong location that one time.  I'm pretty terrible at it myself and haven't played the newest ones but I don't hate them.  I just don't play games that don't appeal to me.

/I'm going to be digging through the 'box of PC doom' when I get home looking for my old COD disks


Call of Duty isn't bad. It's what a lot of people want, and I've played a few of them a bit and enjoyed it enough. I'm happy for them.

The problem in the industry right now is a follow-the-leader approach where other developers and publishers are trying to force elements of CoD into other games, if they belong or not, to try to get a piece of the pie. This results in a lot of games with odd and conflicting elements, and a general generification of many games to make them all more similar to CoD. It's not CoD's fault that they're successful and executives are forcing dumb mandates on other games because they "want the Call of Duty audience".
 
2013-09-26 01:35:35 PM  

Slaxl: Call of Duty 19: Assault on Disneyworld

Out of curiosity, if you add up all the CoD games ever released, what number are we on now?


If you include the one coming out this year, it's 10.
 
2013-09-26 01:41:26 PM  

HeartBurnKid: Actually, it is particularly revolutionary, because it takes a model that practical constraints previously limited to small geographic areas and uses technology to make it available on a wide-ranging (not quite global, but pretty close) basis.  That is a major game changer, since, for example, not every fan of adventure games lives in the greater Seattle area.


It's still just a specific instance of what the internet has done to capital investment since the 1990s.  A lot of the dot-com boom was fueled by geographically spread-out smaller-time investors, though they didn't sufficiently limit the issue of resulting stock inflation and kinda paid the price.  Kickstarter's more a small, logical step forward (tweaking the investor rewards) than any kind of paradigm shift.

I mean, I'm not saying this is  bad, if anything the fact that it's an incremental change in methodology makes it  more likely to succeed as a continuing model for investment.  I'm just saying it's getting a little boring hearing about it all the time like it was the latest teen fashion or whatever instead of the relatively simple cost/benefit-driven business decision it is.
 
2013-09-26 01:42:30 PM  

Girl Pants: The problem in the industry right now is a follow-the-leader approach where other developers and publishers are trying to force elements of CoD into other games, if they belong or not, to try to get a piece of the pie.


Probably my least favorite incarnation of this is the insistence on World of Warcraft esque talent trees in every game where they could be sort of relevant. Especially since even WoW realized the idea was farking terrible and jetcanned it.
 
2013-09-26 01:55:16 PM  

China White Tea: "Okay, so, we need some money, so we can make a prototype, so we can show it to investors, so maybe we can get enough money to actually make a game someday."


Neal Stephenson's  Clang was the same way. And then he had the temerity to biatch about how the Kickstarter model locked him into his original plan, because he would have changed course several times if he wasn't on the hook to make the thing he told people he was going to make.
 
2013-09-26 01:55:39 PM  

tallen702: Call of Duty 19: Assault on Disneyworld

You know, I'd actually play this...


Between the "Small World with a Shotgun" and "MP9 + Mickey Ears" scenarios mentioned earlier, not only would I play this game, I'm starting to feel that I must.

I want to be the sniper in the castle.
 
2013-09-26 01:55:48 PM  

Dimensio: After contributing to Torment: Tides of Numenera, I decided to withhold support for any future Kickstarter projects for some time.

And then Mighty No. 9 was announced.

And then WayForward announced this project.
/God Damnit.


I was hoping The Power Of FarkTM would help the Shantae kickstarter but it seems it's focused elsewhere.  So it goes.
 
2013-09-26 02:00:16 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Honest Bender: Early access gives you the chance to play a game well before you would otherwise be able.  Let's take a popular game as an example: Kerbal Space Program.

KSP also had the added benefit that with early access came purchasing the game at a much cheaper price than it will be when it goes into final release.


I've heard great things about KSP, but the release price is above what I'd like to pay for it*. So yeah, get in at pre-release prices when you can. I bought Minecraft when it was still in beta for $10; probably wouldn't get it now at its release price of $20.

/also, a friend of mine has a kickstarter for his indie game: Castle Breakers
//help him out if you can
///* kinda poor right now, games budget is virtually nil
 
2013-09-26 02:01:49 PM  
Star Citizen just crossed the 20 MILLION dollar mark a couple of minutes ago. That's incredible.

if they deliver HALF of what they're showing, it's going to be the best damn game ever.

/got my 300i all set to go for the dogfighting alpha in december
//the hangar app is pretty sweet.
 
2013-09-26 02:03:15 PM  

Gonz: tallen702: Call of Duty 19: Assault on Disneyworld

You know, I'd actually play this...

Between the "Small World with a Shotgun" and "MP9 + Mickey Ears" scenarios mentioned earlier, not only would I play this game, I'm starting to feel that I must.

I want to be the sniper in the castle.


Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (the novel) had a terrorist incident at a Euro Disney expy. One of the snipers was perched on at the top of a Ferris wheel while the terrorists were camped out in the castle.

Don't have anything to really add, your comment just reminded me of it.
 
2013-09-26 02:05:57 PM  

Vertdang: Star Citizen just crossed the 20 MILLION dollar mark a couple of minutes ago. That's incredible.

if they deliver HALF of what they're showing, it's going to be the best damn game ever.

/got my 300i all set to go for the dogfighting alpha in december
//the hangar app is pretty sweet.



I want Star Citizen to be amazing.

I expect it to be disappointing.

If nothing else, though, at least the people at the head of that project actually have experience making commercial games.  Same for Torment.
 
2013-09-26 02:06:44 PM  
I don't care what you hipsters say, call of duty black ops 2 is fun as hell.  Millions of others agree.  Face it, you're wrong.
 
2013-09-26 02:07:00 PM  

germ78: that bosnian sniper: Honest Bender: Early access gives you the chance to play a game well before you would otherwise be able.  Let's take a popular game as an example: Kerbal Space Program.

KSP also had the added benefit that with early access came purchasing the game at a much cheaper price than it will be when it goes into final release.

I've heard great things about KSP, but the release price is above what I'd like to pay for it*. So yeah, get in at pre-release prices when you can. I bought Minecraft when it was still in beta for $10; probably wouldn't get it now at its release price of $20.

/also, a friend of mine has a kickstarter for his indie game: Castle Breakers
//help him out if you can
///* kinda poor right now, games budget is virtually nil


KSP is a really fun game. they had it on a steam sale for $13 a couple weeks ago. I think it was $5 or $7 during the summer sale.

/just messing around with it is a blast, can't wait to try career mode.
 
2013-09-26 02:07:05 PM  

Gonz: tallen702: Call of Duty 19: Assault on Disneyworld

You know, I'd actually play this...

Between the "Small World with a Shotgun" and "MP9 + Mickey Ears" scenarios mentioned earlier, not only would I play this game, I'm starting to feel that I must.

I want to be the sniper in the castle.


I read the headline and got excited, thinking this was a real thing. Are there any (decent) games that take place in a theme park?
 
2013-09-26 02:10:22 PM  

sprawl15: Girl Pants: The problem in the industry right now is a follow-the-leader approach where other developers and publishers are trying to force elements of CoD into other games, if they belong or not, to try to get a piece of the pie.

Probably my least favorite incarnation of this is the insistence on World of Warcraft esque talent trees in every game where they could be sort of relevant. Especially since even WoW realized the idea was farking terrible and jetcanned it.


To be fair, WoW hijacked them from Diablo 2, which was just doing a visualization of something they'd stolen from other games that eventually traces back to D&D feat trees in the first place.

I don't know that it's the trees themselves that are a problem, honestly, so much as the idea that a shooter needs RPG elements anyway.  A competitive shooter, I mean, it makes sense in a shooter that's also an RPG (Fallout, Borderlands, etc).
 
2013-09-26 02:10:57 PM  

jfivealive: I don't care what you hipsters say, call of duty black ops 2 is fun as hell.  Millions of others agree.  Face it, you're wrong.


millions of people went to see Adam Sandler's Jack and Jill.... doesn't mean it was any good. It means that millions of people have shiat taste in movies.

Hence, Blops2
 
2013-09-26 02:11:16 PM  

Mulchpuppy: Gonz: tallen702: Call of Duty 19: Assault on Disneyworld

You know, I'd actually play this...

Between the "Small World with a Shotgun" and "MP9 + Mickey Ears" scenarios mentioned earlier, not only would I play this game, I'm starting to feel that I must.

I want to be the sniper in the castle.

I read the headline and got excited, thinking this was a real thing. Are there any (decent) games that take place in a theme park?


A theme park for the whole game? Not that I can think of (except the Tycoon type games). A lot of games have theme parks in them or a level that takes place in one. I remember Crackdown (and by proxy Crackdown 2 as it used the same map) had an amusement park. GTA V has an amusement park. The first level of the Devil May Cry reboot is in one. Here's the TVTropes page on Amusement Parks (I hold no liability for you wasting time on that site)
 
2013-09-26 02:16:45 PM  

Jim_Callahan: I don't know that it's the trees themselves that are a problem, honestly, so much as the idea that a shooter needs RPG elements anyway.


It's more that in the vast majority of their implementations they offer only an illusion of choice. There is some role you're trying to fill, and there is an optimal organization of points to meet that role. If you stray from that optimal route, you are penalized for not knowing a certain amount of information and the simplest way to learn that information is to google it (thanks to the tendency for overly complex systems to be modeled by a few neckbeards).

Their main function is replacing a feeling of progression in terms of evolution of play and player response with an abstract feeling of progression from getting various flavors of Ability +1.
 
2013-09-26 02:17:22 PM  

Vertdang: Star Citizen just crossed the 20 MILLION dollar mark a couple of minutes ago. That's incredible.

if they deliver HALF of what they're showing, it's going to be the best damn game ever.

/got my 300i all set to go for the dogfighting alpha in december
//the hangar app is pretty sweet.


I got the email saying the hangar module was being released the morning I was going on holiday, and I completely forgot all about it since getting back, even through the previous mentions of Star Citizen in this thread, so thank you for reminding me I gotta go and check it out.
 
2013-09-26 02:18:47 PM  
Slaxl, no problem. What do you have parked in there?

/just remember, still pre alpha, there's some collision issues on some ships.
 
2013-09-26 02:29:19 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (the novel) had a terrorist incident at a Euro Disney expy. One of the snipers was perched on at the top of a Ferris wheel while the terrorists were camped out in the castle.


That's the exact scene I had in mind when I wrote that. Where the sniper gives the terrorist a gut shot rather than a head shot, so he'll die slowly as retribution for killing the crippled kid.
 
2013-09-26 02:31:33 PM  

Vertdang: jfivealive: I don't care what you hipsters say, call of duty black ops 2 is fun as hell.  Millions of others agree.  Face it, you're wrong.

millions of people went to see Adam Sandler's Jack and Jill.... doesn't mean it was any good. It means that millions of people have shiat taste in movies.

Hence, Blops2


Millions of people saw the movie once, they didnt see it again.  Millions of people play black ops 2 on a regular basis.  Face it, you're wrong.
 
2013-09-26 02:32:09 PM  

germ78: that bosnian sniper: Honest Bender: Early access gives you the chance to play a game well before you would otherwise be able.  Let's take a popular game as an example: Kerbal Space Program.

KSP also had the added benefit that with early access came purchasing the game at a much cheaper price than it will be when it goes into final release.

I've heard great things about KSP, but the release price is above what I'd like to pay for it*. So yeah, get in at pre-release prices when you can. I bought Minecraft when it was still in beta for $10; probably wouldn't get it now at its release price of $20.

/also, a friend of mine has a kickstarter for his indie game: Castle Breakers
//help him out if you can
///* kinda poor right now, games budget is virtually nil


Cute concept, for sure.  Like how it's not just the "ball" that you can bounce back.
 
2013-09-26 02:46:49 PM  

jfivealive: Vertdang: jfivealive: I don't care what you hipsters say, call of duty black ops 2 is fun as hell.  Millions of others agree.  Face it, you're wrong. millions of people went to see Adam Sandler's Jack and Jill.... doesn't mean it was any good. It means that millions of people have shiat taste in movies. Hence, Blops2 Millions of people saw the movie once, they didnt see it again.  Millions of people play black ops 2 on a regular basis.  Face it, you're wrong.

Hmm. Hang on a sec, I got this one:

>implying millions of people don't rewatch shiat movies

>implying there wasn't millions of people that played blops 2 once and never again


 
2013-09-26 02:53:53 PM  

Obbi: jfivealive: Vertdang: jfivealive: I don't care what you hipsters say, call of duty black ops 2 is fun as hell.  Millions of others agree.  Face it, you're wrong. millions of people went to see Adam Sandler's Jack and Jill.... doesn't mean it was any good. It means that millions of people have shiat taste in movies. Hence, Blops2 Millions of people saw the movie once, they didnt see it again.  Millions of people play black ops 2 on a regular basis.  Face it, you're wrong.Hmm. Hang on a sec, I got this one:>implying millions of people don't rewatch shiat movies>implying there wasn't millions of people that played blops 2 once and never again


And there are millions of people playing blops 2 today, and there aren't millions of people watching adam sandler's jack and jill today.  You got this.
 
2013-09-26 02:59:27 PM  

Gonz: scottydoesntknow: Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (the novel) had a terrorist incident at a Euro Disney expy. One of the snipers was perched on at the top of a Ferris wheel while the terrorists were camped out in the castle.

That's the exact scene I had in mind when I wrote that. Where the sniper gives the terrorist a gut shot rather than a head shot, so he'll die slowly as retribution for killing the crippled kid.


Yep! I almost wrote that too, but didn't know if you knew and didn't want to spoil it.

Loved that whole chapter.
 
2013-09-26 03:00:36 PM  

Obbi: :>implying millions of people don't rewatch shiat movies
>implying there wasn't millions of people that played blops 2 once and never again


If it was just once you'd have something.
...But the fact is that Black ops is, what, the NINTH game in the series of a popular genre?

Did people not know what they were buying by now?!

/This is the film equivalent of seeing a line for transformers 3 and calling the producer a talentless hack.
/Maybe he doesn't do Shakespeare, but he knows how to give the people what they want.
 
2013-09-26 03:03:13 PM  

Vertdang: Slaxl, no problem. What do you have parked in there?

/just remember, still pre alpha, there's some collision issues on some ships.


Only the first rookie ship. I bought a basic package then forgot about it. Occasionally I saw emails about new ships, but I decided to hold firm and not get sucked down that path. I have a tendency to get overexcited by hype and then be disappointed, so i'm trying to be sensible.

Unfortunately upon loading it told me my graphics card isn't supported (yet, hopefully), and then proceeded to go to a black screen for 20 minutes before crashing :( My wait is not yet over.
 
2013-09-26 03:21:00 PM  

brap: Can it with the "For $10,000 we will make YOU a minor character in Forcemeat: OperationNarnia AND send you three "Step off fraggit" lapel pins AND name our next goldfish after your mom"  and just give me some got damned points on the profits like the old got damned days when an investor was an investor and not just a got damned fanboy!

GAAAAHHHHHHHH!


Can't, according to SEC regs. No more than 200 investors, no more than 25 who aren't already millionaires, and no public appeals for funds without an IPO and underwriting by Goldman Sachs or another financial firm. Plus ongoing third party oversight because you are now a publicly owned company.

Crowdsourcing is only legal if you don't call it an investment. Definitely offering future profit splits through crowdsourcing is illegal.
 
2013-09-26 03:30:16 PM  

mooseyfate: Egoy3k: ITT: butthurt morons who don't understand why video games are made.

/it's to make money

So your belief, as a consumer, is that you should just blindly lap up whatever bullshiat is placed infront of you? With no complaints? I'm not exactly anti-establishment, but fark that shiat. If a company is churning out increasingly terrible games, why would we continue to fork over money? This is all hypothetical, of course, because CoD has such a hard-wired audience now, I'm pretty sure they could go the better part of the next decade releasing only Sinead O'Conner CDs in Call of Duty packaging and still not lose a dime in projected sales, but c'mon! There's a better way to do this shiat, so I'm going to continue to give my money to game companies that actually make quality products. Because when a company can make quality products that ALSO beat the pants off of EA and Activision's FPS Factory Games in sales, everyone wins.


I was very clear in my original statement that I no longer care for the COD series.  Many other people abstain from purchasing the COD games but millions continue to purchase COD every year.  Not once did I endorse purchasing a game that you don't care for, why would you think that I do?  If you don't like it don't farking buy it or play it but don't expect anything to change until millions of people change their minds.
 
2013-09-26 03:36:49 PM  
BolloxReader:Can't, according to SEC regs. No more than 200 investors, no more than 25 who aren't already millionaires, and no public appeals for funds without an IPO and underwriting by Goldman Sachs or another financial firm. Plus ongoing third party oversight because you are now a publicly owned company.

Crowdsourcing is only legal if you don't call it an investment. Definitely offering future profit splits through crowdsourcing is illegal.


That's interesting but not really what I'm talking about. I'm not suggesting an IPO, more along the lines of a professionally produced movie or play or any contracted produced service where investors can indeed get a share of the profits
 
2013-09-26 03:38:49 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Without debating that (because let's face it, it's true), since the expansion of the F2P model in the West and the easing of the social stigmas attached to it ("F2P is P2W" and "F2P means failure") there's been a lot more competition in the F2P market. Demand for games is relatively inelastic given there are a finite number of gamers with diverse interests and expectation, and if there's one thing we've seen it's that the supply of games is very elastic -- F2P developers and publishers have to compete amongst each other for gamers, especially the free ones, and that means they have to create an F2P environment that has the highest value to free players (to lure them in and retain them), but remains profitable.


I don't disagree with you on the basic market model in play here, and that the quality of the games will probably improve, but there are philosophical limits when it comes to free-to-play.  It's going to be hell to preserve the games so they can be played in the future, and in addition, the model demands content.  More content, more content, more content.  But complexity in choice is only good if it is backed with complexity in design.  You can give me 20 different weapons, just make sure they all have a good, solid, specific use, and that I can switch to any of those weapons in the course of heated combat.  The endgame is that you end up with a bloated game, where you're creating and recycling redundant choices, because that is the business model.

So even if you have intense competition and demand for the games leading to better games, it's still going to be fundamentally inferior to the arcade or the retail model.  I'm not looking at it as "all the free-to-play games currently suck, but there may be better ones in the future", but moreso "the business model is designed to suck".  The only free-to-play game that I've played so far which holds up to any preliminary scrutiny is Path of Exile, though I have heard some nice things about World of Tanks from others.  (And yeah, not discounting your praise for it.  Heard it from other people as well.)  But I'd be much more confident in either of those games if they were sixty-dollar boxed games (or thirty-dollar digital games) with the occasional expansion pack.

Egoy3k: ITT: butthurt morons who don't understand why video games are made.

/it's to make money


That's perfectly acceptable.  The issue is that the contract between the developer, the one where "casual" games could be used to finance the "hardcore" games, the one where the players who are genuinely interested in games as a medium can dictate the content, has completely and utterly broken down, and it's the reason you're having this horrible schism in the market.  All the money brought into the console market by FIFA, or Madden, or licensed games, or casual games, is now going to companies whose sole existence is so suck that money out of the market.  Most of our best video games were made by the publishers who could secure capital and talent and put them under a single roof, so don't be surprised that people are freaking the fark out as the model falls apart.

Egoy3k: If COD is such a bad game why does it make so much money?


Because people can buy what they relate to and most people are thoroughly mediocre.
 
2013-09-26 03:48:19 PM  

Vertdang: KSP is a really fun game. they had it on a steam sale for $13 a couple weeks ago. I think it was $5 or $7 during the summer sale.

/just messing around with it is a blast, can't wait to try career mode.


KSP is amazing, especially with its moddability and the fact they keep adding the content of popular add-ons to the game proper. I really hope they integrate MechJeb's flight telemetry into the main game if not the auto-pilot feature, and add in RemoteTech's functionality to unmanned missions. MapSat and Kethane would be great too, since those two mods add a ton of potential mission objectives and profiles.

I still have my save file where I got a fully-functioning KPS in operation complete, with Munar and Minmus relay and mapping satsand a Munar kethane operation. Before I quit, I  was about to launch a mothership to Duna that would park an unmanned kethane rig in LDO and install relay sats in Duna-synchronous orbit before returning.
 
2013-09-26 03:51:22 PM  

Mike_LowELL: That's perfectly acceptable. The issue is that the contract between the developer, the one where "casual" games could be used to finance the "hardcore" games, the one where the players who are genuinely interested in games as a medium can dictate the content, has completely and utterly broken down, and it's the reason you're having this horrible schism in the market. All the money brought into the console market by FIFA, or Madden, or licensed games, or casual games, is now going to companies whose sole existence is so suck that money out of the market. Most of our best video games were made by the publishers who could secure capital and talent and put them under a single roof, so don't be surprised that people are freaking the fark out as the model falls apart.


I don't disagree but there are still many quality games being made and I don't see any real cause for concern.  Most gamers who get really in a twist about this sort of thing are just upset that 'popular game X' doesn't conform to their wishes meanwhile they are missing out on 'less popular game Y' or 'indie game z'.
 
2013-09-26 03:57:20 PM  

Mike_LowELL: I don't disagree with you on the basic market model in play here...The endgame is that you end up with a bloated game, where you're creating and recycling redundant choices, because that is the business model.


The subscription-based model suffers from the same issues -- mudflation, demand for ever-increasing amounts of content, power creep, drop-off in innovation, etc. I'm fairly convinced  World of Warcraft has only enjoyed the longevity it has, because Blizzard basically reinvents the game's mechanics with each expansion within a loose framework of role and class expectation.
 
2013-09-26 04:00:22 PM  

Egoy3k: I don't disagree but there are still many quality games being made and I don't see any real cause for concern.


A big problem is that oversaturation of mediocrity leads to atrophied tastes. People are willing to look at something that may be perfectly competent dumb fun and declare it Totally Excellent. Take the newest SimCity: Polygon rated it a 9.5, then an 8, then a 4, then a 6.5. For basically the same build between all three. The server problems not being visible in their very short time with the game is something that could have been foreseen (as Penny Arcade foresaw in their warning of their own sort-of-review), but the fundamental design issues with GlassBox's agent system were glaring and telegraphed. There were series of videos released by Maxis showing how the agents have no actual agency and how everything in the game is based on buildings releasing/receiving agents (which are themselves merely packets of resources) and running on a few simple 'rules'.

Those problems were ignored because the game was 'pretty fun for a bit' which is all that's required to be considered a masterpiece in the modern gaming industry. Bioshock Infinite's another great example of something that is mediocre but lauded because of how little the general public expects from videogames: we compare B:I to Call of Duty and come out with a very favorable comparison, not to the history of FPSs, where it's above average but nothing special.
 
2013-09-26 04:07:51 PM  
 
2013-09-26 04:28:21 PM  

Honest Bender: that bosnian sniper: I really hope they

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Planned_features


Yup. I really hope they change their mind on Lagrangian mechanics, though. I love my first orbital kethane refinery and supply depot to having forgotten that little fact.
 
2013-09-26 04:32:26 PM  
I've funded five kickstarters now, one board game, two video games, one set of miniatures, and a pen and paper RPG. Only the last one the set of miniatures has actually delivered.
 
2013-09-26 04:34:28 PM  

sprawl15: Egoy3k: I don't disagree but there are still many quality games being made and I don't see any real cause for concern.

A big problem is that oversaturation of mediocrity leads to atrophied tastes. People are willing to look at something that may be perfectly competent dumb fun and declare it Totally Excellent. Take the newest SimCity: Polygon rated it a 9.5, then an 8, then a 4, then a 6.5. For basically the same build between all three. The server problems not being visible in their very short time with the game is something that could have been foreseen (as Penny Arcade foresaw in their warning of their own sort-of-review), but the fundamental design issues with GlassBox's agent system were glaring and telegraphed. There were series of videos released by Maxis showing how the agents have no actual agency and how everything in the game is based on buildings releasing/receiving agents (which are themselves merely packets of resources) and running on a few simple 'rules'.

Those problems were ignored because the game was 'pretty fun for a bit' which is all that's required to be considered a masterpiece in the modern gaming industry. Bioshock Infinite's another great example of something that is mediocre but lauded because of how little the general public expects from videogames: we compare B:I to Call of Duty and come out with a very favorable comparison, not to the history of FPSs, where it's above average but nothing special.


Yeah, but when we compare B:I to B or B2 it is clearly the worst of the lot, but try telling anybody on the internet that and you get called a troll.
 
2013-09-26 04:39:51 PM  
If it wasn't for kick starter, I wouldn't of ever gotten to play a proper SWAT follow up (see Takedown Red Sabre, out now on Steam and 360). Nor would I get the chance to play a proper Socom: U.S Navy Seals follow up (see H-Hour: Worlds Elite out next year). Kickstarter is the greatest thing to ever happen to games.
 
2013-09-26 04:40:04 PM  
sprawl15: ...Bioshock Infinite's another great example of something that is mediocre but lauded because of how little the general public expects from videogames: we compare B:I to Call of Duty and come out with a very favorable comparison, not to the history of FPSs, where it's above average but nothing special.

To be fair, much of Bioshock Infinite's praise originated from its story, setting, and characterization rather than its gameplay. It's gameplay is really only outstanding compared to contemporary shooters, sure, but on the other hand it's still a marked improvement from previous games in the series. That's a perfectly reasonable trade-off, at least for me.
 
2013-09-26 04:42:23 PM  

that bosnian sniper: I love my first orbital kethane refinery and supply depot to having forgotten that little fact.


I really wanted to like the kethane stuff. But CHRIST it takes too long to map a planet. And once mapped, how am I supposed to translate that map into a landing site?
 
2013-09-26 04:44:41 PM  

amundb: If it wasn't for kick starter, I wouldn't of ever gotten to play a proper SWAT follow up (see Takedown Red Sabre, out now on Steam and 360). Nor would I get the chance to play a proper Socom: U.S Navy Seals follow up (see H-Hour: Worlds Elite out next year). Kickstarter is the greatest thing to ever happen to games.


I'd never heard of any of those games, so I googled them, and this review for Takedown is one of the most damning reviews I've ever read, it's quite funny. The game does look poo though, so it might be right.
 
2013-09-26 04:47:52 PM  

that bosnian sniper: To be fair, much of Bioshock Infinite's praise originated from its story, setting, and characterization rather than its gameplay.


There was a huge fundamental issue with it, though. Lutece developed the technology on her own, and that led to Columbia, and nothing is ever really addressed in terms of what then happens with that technology. It would be like if you discover a death laser on the moon and you go and try to stop the death laser from blowing up earth but you regret the violence so you try to stop your violent rampage and never mention the death laser again.

And that's besides the silliness like the fact that tonics exist at all in that world, or why Elizabeth can only open rifts to combat related things in battle arenas (other than the one time she can make apples).

that bosnian sniper: but on the other hand [the gameplay is] still a marked improvement from previous games in the series


I'd actually disagree. The first two games had a broader set of weapons, letting each weapon fill a different role. Same with the plasmids. B:I 'streamlined' it with the 2 weapons system and making all plasmids 'combat' tonics, causing the weapons and tonics to be pretty much interchangeable (aside from niche weapons which are rendered nearly useless in such a system).
 
2013-09-26 04:49:39 PM  

Egoy3k: I don't disagree but there are still many quality games being made and I don't see any real cause for concern. Most gamers who get really in a twist about this sort of thing are just upset that 'popular game X' doesn't conform to their wishes meanwhile they are missing out on 'less popular game Y' or 'indie game z'.


That's perfectly acceptable, and it's important to distinguish from those who can give good, strong answers for what they like/dislike in the newer games and those who are subscribing to the FM Radio effect and labeling all media as shiatty because they're only exploring what's on the surface.  But I've seen absolutely nothing to suggest that the combination of strong individual creativity as financed by the large coffers of publishers is not the best option that we have for game design right now.  (Unless you want to get governments financing those games and give those developers full creative freedom, irrespective of whether they can make a profit.)  Even the crowdsourcing model comes with its caveats, because those players basically act as shareholders, when the ideal goal is to let those who know how to run their operation do exactly that.

that bosnian sniper: The subscription-based model suffers from the same issues -- mudflation, demand for ever-increasing amounts of content, power creep, drop-off in innovation, etc. I'm fairly convinced World of Warcraft has only enjoyed the longevity it has, because Blizzard basically reinvents the game's mechanics with each expansion within a loose framework of role and class expectation.


Just so you know where I'm coming from, I think persistent game models--with the current technology that we have--are best oriented towards the things that make persistence interesting.  In other words, the sort of dynamic decision-making that large numbers of people can make in an MMORPG, for instance.  And not the World of Warcraft theme park kind, but the Asheron's Call or the EVE Online, where players have free reign to bring life or death to what they see fit.  (When the battle for the player-versus-player server in Asheron's Call was won by Blood's monarchy, people unsubscribed, because they saw it as the game "being over".)

For everything else, whether single-player or versus multiplayer, you're tying yourself to a business model in which the player has the final say, rather than the developer.  And as far as I have seen, most of the games which use this model for persistent updates--DotA 2, League of Legends, StarCraft II, and so forth--do it because their core mechanical and aesthetic design choices aren't up to snuff.  (Brood War just feels, looks, and sounds so much better than StarCraft II.)  So in order to prevent players from becoming bored with the core mechanics, they have to constantly inject new novelty into the experience, whether through balance updates, or new characters, or whatever.  And I would say that if it's new novelty you desire, then you're just better off picking up a different game.
 
2013-09-26 05:37:27 PM  

pute kisses like a man: [cdn.steamcommunity.com image 850x189]


fark you in your mothers farking ass.

I view greenlight as one of the scourges of steam. Now it's 95% nothing but 'ALPHA PRE-RELEASE' and 'PRE-ORDER NOW!!!' Just like farking gamestop. In a few months they'll figure out a way to buy and sell used PC games and start screaming at you for that.

Seriously, it's obnoxious that every time I go 'oh that game looks cool' it's either a pre-order, or it's a pre-alpha release that you get to pay full price for and maybe some day it'll leave beta. Maybe.

I just want a game, to play.
 
2013-09-26 05:37:30 PM  

sprawl15: Lutece developed the technology on her own, and that led to Columbia, and nothing is ever really addressed in terms of what then happens with that technology.


That's outside the scope of the narrative, which is about Booker, Elizabeth, and Comstock. The story begins and ends with them, not the Luteces. Complaining about that, is like complaining that  Jurassic Park didn't explain what happened to the dinosaurs after the main characters escaped the park (in the book, whether the Air Force managed to kill them all, and in the movie whether the lysine contingency actually works) -- it's simply outside the scope of the narrative.

Vigors  are explained, albeit indirectly, in the game. Also, you're inquiring about Elizabeth's ability to open tears and bring items through that are really beyond the game's immediate context (not to mention, it's handwaved by the Siphon). You might as well ask why Elizabeth doesn't open a tear and bring an atom bomb through to destroy Columbia.

Honest Bender: I really wanted to like the kethane stuff. But CHRIST it takes too long to map a planet. And once mapped, how am I supposed to translate that map into a landing site?


Well, the kethane mod gives latitudinal and longitudinal coordinates for kethane deposits, but you need another add on to plot landing sites -- assuming you're making use of a kethane detection satellite. I think the later add-on versions continue mapping once you've returned to mission control, or beyond that you can time-skip until the planet's mapped.  You can still build a rover with a detection radar on it and manually prospect.

Mike_LowELL: Just so you know where I'm coming from, I think persistent game models--with the current technology that we have--are best oriented towards the things that make persistence interesting.  In other words, the sort of dynamic decision-making that large numbers of people can make in an MMORPG, for instance.


Indeed, I agree that designing for emergent gameplay is the best route to a game environment that's persistent and persistently interesting. Of course, that's a dying trend in MMO's unfortunately.
 
2013-09-26 05:47:31 PM  

kroonermanblack: pute kisses like a man: [cdn.steamcommunity.com image 850x189]

fark you in your mothers farking ass.

I view greenlight as one of the scourges of steam. Now it's 95% nothing but 'ALPHA PRE-RELEASE' and 'PRE-ORDER NOW!!!' Just like farking gamestop. In a few months they'll figure out a way to buy and sell used PC games and start screaming at you for that.

Seriously, it's obnoxious that every time I go 'oh that game looks cool' it's either a pre-order, or it's a pre-alpha release that you get to pay full price for and maybe some day it'll leave beta. Maybe.

I just want a game, to play.


fark yes, I would love to sell off some of my old games.
 
2013-09-26 06:00:01 PM  

Gonz: scottydoesntknow: Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six (the novel) had a terrorist incident at a Euro Disney expy. One of the snipers was perched on at the top of a Ferris wheel while the terrorists were camped out in the castle.

That's the exact scene I had in mind when I wrote that. Where the sniper gives the terrorist a gut shot rather than a head shot, so he'll die slowly as retribution for killing the crippled kid.


Wasn't that Noonan?

/I loved that novel
//really need to re-read it
 
2013-09-26 06:06:11 PM  

Egoy3k: mooseyfate: Egoy3k: ITT: butthurt morons who don't understand why video games are made.

/it's to make money

So your belief, as a consumer, is that you should just blindly lap up whatever bullshiat is placed infront of you? With no complaints? I'm not exactly anti-establishment, but fark that shiat. If a company is churning out increasingly terrible games, why would we continue to fork over money? This is all hypothetical, of course, because CoD has such a hard-wired audience now, I'm pretty sure they could go the better part of the next decade releasing only Sinead O'Conner CDs in Call of Duty packaging and still not lose a dime in projected sales, but c'mon! There's a better way to do this shiat, so I'm going to continue to give my money to game companies that actually make quality products. Because when a company can make quality products that ALSO beat the pants off of EA and Activision's FPS Factory Games in sales, everyone wins.

I was very clear in my original statement that I no longer care for the COD series.  Many other people abstain from purchasing the COD games but millions continue to purchase COD every year.  Not once did I endorse purchasing a game that you don't care for, why would you think that I do?  If you don't like it don't farking buy it or play it but don't expect anything to change until millions of people change their minds.


The "ITT" post was the first one of yours I'd read in this thread. I don't have you Farkied, so your posts aren't highlighted. Usually "ITT" posts are one-off pseudo trolls. And I stopped expecting anything from people a long time ago, let alone millions of people at once.
 
2013-09-26 06:14:00 PM  

that bosnian sniper: That's outside the scope of the narrative, which is about Booker, Elizabeth, and Comstock. The story begins and ends with them, not the Luteces.


On the contrary. The game begins with the Luteces. The Luteces guide you to the ending - an arrangement between Booker and Elizabeth by the Luteces.

The arc only starts with the idea that you want to find and retrieve Elizabeth (a Lutece lie). To follow through on that, you resort to changing reality and uncovering greater and greater horrors. Eventually, to stop the consequences from being unleashed on the world, you end any chance of that. But the thing that released the horrors, the catalyst for everything bad that happened, wasn't Comstock - it was Lutece's technology. Everything you do as Booker (past the whole Vox reveal) is to prevent the use of the Lutece's technology in the way he saw (both in visions and in his time traveling), but that technology is left in the hands of the next person interested in bending reality to their will. It's bizarre.

that bosnian sniper: Vigors are explained, albeit indirectly, in the game.


Not in terms of the world the game exists in. The vigors are sold by street vendors and automated machines, they're in the clutches of dead citizens all over Columbia, yet the only enemies that use them are zealots (which use a very different vigor than the one you get) and firemen (who again don't use the vigor directly). And the citizenry is fine with the changes from drinking vigors but not with the changes from having a bit of Irish blood. They're handwaved into the game, then scattered everywhere because Bioshock has to have plasmids and why not.
 
2013-09-26 06:42:39 PM  

Egoy3k: mooseyfate: Egoy3k: ITT: butthurt morons who don't understand why video games are made.

/it's to make money

So your belief, as a consumer, is that you should just blindly lap up whatever bullshiat is placed infront of you? With no complaints? I'm not exactly anti-establishment, but fark that shiat. If a company is churning out increasingly terrible games, why would we continue to fork over money? This is all hypothetical, of course, because CoD has such a hard-wired audience now, I'm pretty sure they could go the better part of the next decade releasing only Sinead O'Conner CDs in Call of Duty packaging and still not lose a dime in projected sales, but c'mon! There's a better way to do this shiat, so I'm going to continue to give my money to game companies that actually make quality products. Because when a company can make quality products that ALSO beat the pants off of EA and Activision's FPS Factory Games in sales, everyone wins.

I was very clear in my original statement that I no longer care for the COD series.  Many other people abstain from purchasing the COD games but millions continue to purchase COD every year.  Not once did I endorse purchasing a game that you don't care for, why would you think that I do?  If you don't like it don't farking buy it or play it but don't expect anything to change until millions of people change their minds.


I don't think anybody is expecting anything to change.  But the beauty of Kickstarter, Indiegogo, and crowdfunding in general is that those of us who do like the things that publishers, in their infinite wisdom, have decided aren't LCD enough to make them giant money hats have an avenue to make sure those things get made anyway.
 
2013-09-26 09:27:26 PM  

sprawl15: There was a huge fundamental issue with it, though. Lutece developed the technology on her own, and that led to Columbia, and nothing is ever really addressed in terms of what then happens with that technology. It would be like if you discover a death laser on the moon and you go and try to stop the death laser from blowing up earth but you regret the violence so you try to stop your violent rampage and never mention the death laser again.

And that's besides the silliness like the fact that tonics exist at all in that world, or why Elizabeth can only open rifts to combat related things in battle arenas (other than the one time she can make apples).


TO ANYONE WHO HAS NOT PLAYED INFINITE YET, SPOILERS ABOUND:

She didn't develop it on her own. She developed the technology after receiving funding from Comstock. I'm pretty sure this is addressed in one of the later audio diaries you find.

With Comstock not existing in any timeline anymore, the technology is never created, because she never gets funding (Because only the psycho-prophet funds her, 'cause her idea are. Um. Kinda of nuts?) so it never happens. Or un-happens. Or never will have happened.

Basically, by stopping the creation of Comstock, you also stop the creation of the Lutece's tech. (This is why Booker has never, ever heard of Columbia: in Booker's reality, there is no Comstock. So no funding for Lutece's tech. So Lutece's tech never materializes, and history proceeds as 'normal'.)

The tonics existing is semi-easily explained. It's derived from the rift technology (And, apparently, *powered* by the rift technology, in some ways? I can't quite remember that). Alternatively, they got it from the same place they got the idea for The Songbird. (There's a REASON it looks like a Big Daddy).

And the last bit is simply Gameplay and Story segregation. It's a biatch. But it's also not true: She often opened rifts (when you were chasing her) to flee through pathways that weren't open at the time, etc.

You know, I really, really wish they still had the rights to System Shock, because THAT would have been a fun, if goddamn terrifying shoutout. (Here's another fun thought: SHODAN with access to Lutece's technology)
 
2013-09-26 09:52:35 PM  

Felgraf: The tonics existing is semi-easily explained. It's derived from the rift technology (And, apparently, *powered* by the rift technology, in some ways? I can't quite remember that). Alternatively, they got it from the same place they got the idea for The Songbird. (There's a REASON it looks like a Big Daddy).


There's everything in this post, and in regards to the bit I quoted, it's pretty clearly implied Fink stole the ideas for Vigors from Plasmids, yes, plus the ideas from other third parties/contractors. Considering part of the Siphon is a device for refining Salts, it's clearly derived from the tear technology in some unrevealed way.

And, actually, why most enemies in Bioshock Infinite don't use Vigors is actually pretty clever, if not without exposition in the game.  sprawl15 explained it himself, even though he may not have made the connection.

1. Police at the turn of the century was a profession dominated by  what nationality, again? Why was that?
2.  One vigor was actually given away during the entire game...and to people of what society?
3. How much do vigors and salts cost at vending machines, again?
 
2013-09-27 06:45:47 AM  

HeartBurnKid: I don't think anybody is expecting anything to change. But the beauty of Kickstarter, Indiegogo, and crowdfunding in general is that those of us who do like the things that publishers, in their infinite wisdom, have decided aren't LCD enough to make them giant money hats have an avenue to make sure those things get made anyway.


I'm more interested in the early access model.  I've done it for Minecraft, KSP, and a few others that sucked.  at least then if the effort goes to hell you still ahev something for your money even if it is a broken POS.
 
2013-09-27 07:23:56 AM  

Felgraf: With Comstock not existing in any timeline anymore, the technology is never created


The audio log talks about how she mostly developed the technology and just needed a bit of funding. And funding isn't something you get from just one person, without Comstock around she would just need one more vote. I mean unless in this alternate world Comstock is personally able to write and pass budgets and also happens to be the only person on the planet with an interest in a weapon of unlimited power.

that bosnian sniper: And, actually, why most enemies in Bioshock Infinite don't use Vigors is actually pretty clever, if not without exposition in the game.


Bioshock had plasmids integrated into the world; they were commonly available because they were commonly used. The search for Adam to power the plasmids was a huge chunk of the various motivations of the factions that led to Rapture's downfall (and the discovery of Adam was what fueled Rapture's rapid rise). Even the basic splicer enemies were who they were because of the impact of plasmids on the society - such fundamental power being distributed at-will to the public has a serious impact.

In B:I there are some vigors. And they are just kind of there, because science-magic. They're sold on street corners despite the utter lack of demand. People apparently grabbed their precious bottles before running to train stations to escape but didn't bother drinking them to try to save themselves from death. And even with my assumed explanation of why they don't personally use vigors (something something blood purity) doesn't explain why the Vox don't use them.
 
2013-09-27 07:48:27 AM  

sprawl15: Felgraf: With Comstock not existing in any timeline anymore, the technology is never created

The audio log talks about how she mostly developed the technology and just needed a bit of funding. And funding isn't something you get from just one person, without Comstock around she would just need one more vote. I mean unless in this alternate world Comstock is personally able to write and pass budgets and also happens to be the only person on the planet with an interest in a weapon of unlimited power.

that bosnian sniper: And, actually, why most enemies in Bioshock Infinite don't use Vigors is actually pretty clever, if not without exposition in the game.

Bioshock had plasmids integrated into the world; they were commonly available because they were commonly used. The search for Adam to power the plasmids was a huge chunk of the various motivations of the factions that led to Rapture's downfall (and the discovery of Adam was what fueled Rapture's rapid rise). Even the basic splicer enemies were who they were because of the impact of plasmids on the society - such fundamental power being distributed at-will to the public has a serious impact.

In B:I there are some vigors. And they are just kind of there, because science-magic. They're sold on street corners despite the utter lack of demand. People apparently grabbed their precious bottles before running to train stations to escape but didn't bother drinking them to try to save themselves from death. And even with my assumed explanation of why they don't personally use vigors (something something blood purity) doesn't explain why the Vox don't use them.


She didn't get funding from the government, though. She got it, specifically, *from Comstock*. Comstock is to Lutece what Westinghouse is to Nikolai Tesla: A fund source and a patron, without whom they may not have had much success.

I mean, note: There *is not Lutece* technology in Alpha Booker's world.

And it's not so much "Look no one else is interested in this weapon of unlimited power", it's more "This is the 1930's, this woman claims she can peer into other worlds. PFFfffft. Crank case." Keep in mind: Remember how difficult it was for *TESLA* to get funding (he, too, required a wealthy patron: Were it not for Westinghouse, how much would Tesla have managed to do?), and his tech and ideas were based on things *we knew actually existed* (electricity).
 
2013-09-27 08:43:55 AM  

Egoy3k: HeartBurnKid: I don't think anybody is expecting anything to change. But the beauty of Kickstarter, Indiegogo, and crowdfunding in general is that those of us who do like the things that publishers, in their infinite wisdom, have decided aren't LCD enough to make them giant money hats have an avenue to make sure those things get made anyway.

I'm more interested in the early access model.  I've done it for Minecraft, KSP, and a few others that sucked.  at least then if the effort goes to hell you still ahev something for your money even if it is a broken POS.


It still takes money to start any semi-professional operation.
Early access works for the old school model of game building, where one or two guys start piling code in their spare time. You can see the results are rudimentary looking games and only some go viral later on.

A project like Star Citizen could never work with only an early access model. Its initial goals were just too damn high.

/Its sort of the difference between dropping a few coins in a sidewalk musicians hat or funding a community dance group.
/The musician is already giving you a song for the money, and the dance troop gives  no guarantee of putting on a show.
/But the difference in scale of the end performance simply can't be compared, even if you donation is similar.
 
2013-09-27 09:10:08 AM  

Felgraf: She didn't get funding from the government, though. She got it, specifically, *from Comstock*.


Columbia was built by the government. They paid for it. Keep in mind the timeline, Booker was a poor before his baptism, and Columbia was launched within 3 years of Wounded Knee. The whole reason Columbia was over in China to wipe out the Boxer Rebellion was that it was going around the world as an example of American exceptionalism, an official envoy of the government. Comstock used his influence as a Senator to take over Columbia after launch.

Felgraf: I mean, note: There *is not Lutece* technology in Alpha Booker's world.


That's because Robert Lutece is marginally worse at the technology than his 'sister', and she contacted him and then pulled him into her reality. Keep in mind, they were communicating through quantum widgets they had both independently developed (using the Lutece field). And, strictly speaking, if there is no reality where Comstock exists, and Comstock is required for Rosalind to create the technology to pull her counterpart away from the research, then Robert will simply develop it with a few years lag.

Felgraf: Remember how difficult it was for *TESLA* to get funding


Tesla wasn't producing a new technology and being rejected outright, he was offering one variant of the technology versus Edison's other variant in a mutually exclusive market, and they were both trying to get the foothold needed to be chosen in perpetuity. It's not really a relevant comparison.
 
2013-09-27 11:19:39 AM  

sprawl15: Bioshock had plasmids integrated into the world; they were commonly available because they were commonly used...


How many splicers actually used plasmids, again?
 
2013-09-27 01:47:39 PM  

that bosnian sniper: sprawl15: Bioshock had plasmids integrated into the world; they were commonly available because they were commonly used...

How many splicers actually used plasmids, again?


All of them. That's why they're splicers. Their bodies and minds were mutated by the plasmids they used. That's why they're aggressive - they're looking for the Adam they need. That's also why the Big Daddies were created - to protect the Little Sisters from plasmid junkies. And, lorewise, they used the many additional plasmids that would have existed outside of the direct combat ones that you use in the game (these were mentioned throughout various logs; ways to look prettier, etc).

Lorewise, there's no real evidence of vigors being directly used by anyone but the raven guys. Even in the case of the firemen, the vigor is just a power source for the suit. Columbia barely even acknowledges the existence of vigors other than the carnival nonsense in the beginning of the game and the out of place vigor booths.
 
2013-09-27 02:02:40 PM  

sprawl15: All of them.


...so,

"Only Zealots and Firemen used vigors in Bioshock Infinite game play and that's not okay, even though by my own admission vigors were integrated into the story and setting but not to my satisfaction, but only Houdinis actually  used plasmids in Bioshock game play and it's okay because reasons."
 
2013-09-27 02:17:02 PM  
that bosnian sniper:

Why would you bother responding to a post that you didn't read?
 
2013-09-27 02:29:07 PM  
I feel so disappointed when there's good discussions of the content in a game going on and I have no idea what's being said.  I should probably pay attention to the stories in these games every once in a while.
 
2013-09-27 02:31:07 PM  

sprawl15: Why would you bother responding to a post that you didn't read?


You're the one biatching vigors didn't show up "enough" in Bioshock Infinite's game play, when in fact they showed up  more than in Bioshock's game play.
 
2013-09-27 02:38:06 PM  

that bosnian sniper: You're the one biatching vigors didn't show up "enough" in Bioshock Infinite's game play


oh my mistake you didn't read any of the posts
 
2013-09-27 02:40:55 PM  

Mike_LowELL: I feel so disappointed when there's good discussions of the content in a game going on and I have no idea what's being said.  I should probably pay attention to the stories in these games every once in a while.


In my defense, I certainly wasn't going to be able to pay attention to the combat in B:I and I was determined to slog it out.
 
2013-09-27 03:56:48 PM  

sprawl15: that bosnian sniper: You're the one biatching vigors didn't show up "enough" in Bioshock Infinite's game play

oh my mistake you didn't read any of the posts


sprawl15: Not in terms of the world the game exists in. The vigors are sold by street vendors and automated machines, they're in the clutches of dead citizens all over Columbia, yet the only enemies that use them are zealots (which use a very different vigor than the one you get) and firemen (who again don't use the vigor directly). And the citizenry is fine with the changes from drinking vigors but not with the changes from having a bit of Irish blood. They're handwaved into the game, then scattered everywhere because Bioshock has to have plasmids and why not.


Emphasis mine.
 
2013-09-27 05:45:09 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Emphasis mine.


amazing how you even quote "Not in terms of the world the game exists in" and then ignore everything but "number of enemy types that happen to use plasmids/vigors"
 
2013-09-27 06:31:24 PM  

sprawl15: that bosnian sniper: Emphasis mine.

amazing how you even quote "Not in terms of the world the game exists in" and then ignore everything but "number of enemy types that happen to use plasmids/vigors"


You're the one that framed it in that precise metric, boyo.
 
2013-09-27 06:41:37 PM  

that bosnian sniper: You're the one that framed it in that precise metric, boyo.


you do know you had to trim most of the post away and then bold the specific part and then still miss the point of that part to get to where you are now right
 
Displayed 142 of 142 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report