Balance of Power Creator Says Kickstarter Used To Be Cool

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Awe poor baby, nobody supported your game so now you are gonna complain that it has nothing to do with people not liking you and thinking your concept is a banal waste of time. The video is just him phoning it in for four minutes, trying to act all kooky and funny so people will like him but it just doesn't work. The first minute is of him explaining how fucking great he is and how it's essentially an atrocity that he is unknown, so he had to take this last stab at really getting a name for himself. It failed, he got bitter and bitched with no real point, get over yourself dude.

the internet not altruistic? The same internet that has donated over $1,000,000 on IndieGoGo in just 4 days to a fund to buy the site of Nikola Tesla's laboratory and fund a museum?

Soviet Heavy:
At first I thought that he was talking about x-wing vs tie fighter: balance of power. Then I was disappointed

Wow. Just "disappointed"? That should be a drop like a five-year-old finding Santa's corpse in the chimney on Christmas morning instead of presents.


I remember Balance of the Planet. Read a strategy guide for it some years ago. Even from the screenshots in the strategy guide I was getting a vibe of "You're First World and you should feel guilty!" It made my 11-year-old self feel bad. I didn't know who this Fidel Castro guy was but the fail-screen quotes complaining how my lifestyle was condemning little children to starve seemed pretty serious.

Whatever, so it's a preachy sim game, let's see if he can talk me into parting with some cash. I'm up for it if he's at least good.

(Watches video.) Oh my God. He's like the most annoying schoolteacher and the most patronizing kid show host all rolled into one. I'm in my thirties and he's talking at me like I'm three. He seems to forget that a lot of gamers with money are working adults or at least part-time job teenagers.

Well, no matter, let's look at the rewards. Like always, the first one is the ga... "There is a probability that your name appear -- all by itself -- in a credit screen at the beginning of the game." WHAT? Five bucks for a lottery ticket with a not very good prize?

Okay, free game, I see that now, but he seems to be missing the point here. Even if he gives it away in the end he should have late beta/early access for the donors. Also: The tiers are completely broken. 5/25/50/100/1000? Seriously? Can't fill out those gaps a bit more, especially that HUGE one between "a bit over one day's work" and more than my entire paycheck?

The trick is to stagger it so there's a SMALL jump between levels, so the person who pledges sees it's $10 more for the next thing, and then only $15 more for the next.... Then later on a few really over the top pie-in-the-sky tiers in case rich people happen to come along.

Yeah, I can see why this failed. Crawford crapped out a Kickstarter without ONCE looking at the pitches of the successful ones to figure out what they did right.

If you'll excuse me, I'll be over here throwing money at the Giana Sisters Kickstarter. Seriously, playable demo? Demos = goodness.

Judgement101:
Kickstarter is going to be the death of innovation. People like what is familiar so they will throw money at remakes of old games, minecraft variations, and other non-imaginative games. I know this may not be true but based on the games that are currently being largely donated to, it seems like this may end up becoming the truth.

That is complete baloney.

I'm sorry man, but you couldn't have pulled such a shining example of fox news worthy fear mongering if you tried.

How the fuck will kickstarter be the death of innovation? That makes no sense. Kickstarter creates an environment where 100% creative control of the projects are given to the project proposers. No board of directors or investors bvreathing down your neck to "play it safe" or throwing flow charts and statistics telling you that boys between 14-20 like to shoot brown people.

Direction, Cuts, redesigns, edits... effectively all the decisions potentially facing the project are left 100% at the feet of the creative team, who are by far and largely more suited to creative decisions then a team of accountants and chart readers.

If there is any problem with kickstarter is that there is too much freedom given to people who, more often then not, can't manage it properly. That is why a lot of projects fall to the wayside. Aim too big and scare away any potential investment, fail to make your project appealing to your targeted audience, aim for an infeasible funding target... there are many reasons why projects don't work.

The best projects in kickstarter are always small ones. There is a limit to the size an independent project can be, since the chances of a small team or single person been versed in marketing, direction, production and distribution is slim at best.

***Worse case scenario: Kickstarter makes games on par with what the current industry trends.

***Best case scenario: Kickstarter enables niche games that might never see AAA budgets, to get budgets that stretch beyond a typical indie production.

Nothing will change as nothing has changed. It offers potential, but it won't revolutionise the industry like some people would like to believe. If innovation dies, kicktstarter will have nothing to do with it.

OP: Not meeting a target is the fault of the project leads, not the "potential" investors. Kickstarter puts 100% of culpability of failure at the feet of the proposers. The guy might have a novel idea, but he didn't sell it... or aimed for a market that doesn't exist.

Ragsnstitches:

Judgement101:
Kickstarter is going to be the death of innovation. People like what is familiar so they will throw money at remakes of old games, minecraft variations, and other non-imaginative games. I know this may not be true but based on the games that are currently being largely donated to, it seems like this may end up becoming the truth.

That is complete baloney.

I'm sorry man, but you couldn't have pulled such a shining example of fox news worthy fear mongering if you tried.

How the fuck will kickstarter be the death of innovation? That makes no sense. Kickstarter creates an environment where 100% creative control of the projects are given to the project proposers. No board of directors or investors bvreathing down your neck to "play it safe" or throwing flow charts and statistics telling you that boys between 14-20 like to shoot brown people.

Direction, Cuts, redesigns, edits... effectively all the decisions potentially facing the project are left 100% at the feet of the creative team, who are by far and largely more suited to creative decisions then a team of accountants and chart readers.

If there is any problem with kickstarter is that there is too much freedom given to people who, more often then not, can't manage it properly. That is why a lot of projects fall to the wayside. Aim too big and scare away any potential investment, fail to make your project appealing to your targeted audience, aim for an infeasible funding target... there are many reasons why projects don't work.

The best projects in kickstarter are always small ones. There is a limit to the size an independent project can be, since the chances of a small team or single person been versed in marketing, direction, production and distribution is slim at best.

***Worse case scenario: Kickstarter makes games on par with what the current industry trends.

***Best case scenario: Kickstarter enables niche games that might never see AAA budgets, to get budgets that stretch beyond a typical indie production.

Nothing will change as nothing has changed. It offers potential, but it won't revolutionise the industry like some people would like to believe. If innovation dies, kicktstarter will have nothing to do with it.

OP: Not meeting a target is the fault of the project leads, not the "potential" investors. Kickstarter puts 100% of culpability of failure at the feet of the proposers. The guy might have a novel idea, but he didn't sell it... or aimed for a market that doesn't exist.

I guess I need to clarify again. People will fund stuff that looks like something that they already like. If I was to put something on Kickstarter claiming it to be "Minecraft with guns" or something similar to that it would get funding. This could possibly lead to people starting kickstaters to a game that is not nessisarily innovative because they just want to get their name out there. I know Kickstater right now is a breeding ground for a new direction of gaming but I'm saying that it could easily be abused to fund games that are just clones of a popular game. Also, Indie Go Go is a service that does the exact same thing but it seems like people have taken to begging for money to fund a youtube channel, I know it hasn't happened yet and I hope it doesn't happen, I'm just saying that there always is the possibility of Kickstarter funding counter-innovative games.

Judgement101:
I guess I need to clarify again. People will fund stuff that looks like something that they already like. If I was to put something on Kickstarter claiming it to be "Minecraft with guns" or something similar to that it would get funding. This could possibly lead to people starting kickstaters to a game that is not nessisarily innovative because they just want to get their name out there. I know Kickstater right now is a breeding ground for a new direction of gaming but I'm saying that it could easily be abused to fund games that are just clones of a popular game. Also, Indie Go Go is a service that does the exact same thing but it seems like people have taken to begging for money to fund a youtube channel, I know it hasn't happened yet and I hope it doesn't happen, I'm just saying that there always is the possibility of Kickstarter funding counter-innovative games.

The "death" of innovation was a little bit sensationalist you have to admit.

But your point still doesn't make sense. First off, what does innovate mean? Its to "Make changes in something established, esp. by introducing new methods, ideas, or products".

Minecraft with guns is innovative. It might not be ground breaking or revolutionary, but it IS innovative. Ice cream is delicious, so are bananas, combine the 2 and BAM, Banana split. Before this remarkable feat, we never could appreciate the joys of highly processed dairy and sugar combined with selectively bred (cultivated?) fruit. Innovation is not hard to achieve. It isn't something that has to drastically alter the way we view things. The difficulty is seeing what is worthwhile and what isn't.

What you're thinking of is something that is entirely different... and rare. Invention (not the same as innovation). There is no environment that can truly cultivate the creation of something completely unseen before, especially if its asking for money to do so.

Kickstarter enables Creators to take more risks, since they are the sole dictator of what happens. The only reason a potentially innovative project will flop, is that the person proposing it can't engage investors (or it's too niche to garner enough investors to meet the target).

It can't take away from innovation, it just can't. That is a physical impossibility. Innovation will stop when people stop wanting or needing innovation... if that happens, it happens regardless of Kickstarter, not because of it.

What's more, the incentive for people to use kickstarter, is so they can try things that cautious investors will pass over something safer. People go there with ideas to make something different or something they feel needs to be seen/done... they don't go there to appeal to demographics. That comes afterwards, after market research, where to try to assess how many people might want their product and how big a budget they will need to meet their projects goals.

Since kickstarter enables projects with niche appeal to exist, it means it can only add to the industry, not take away. Bringing back dead or dieing genres might stimulate innovation in the future, by revitalising interest in the old style of games.

EDIT: Invention, Pure creation, the forging of something entirely new, happens despite financial investments. They have to happen before people will invest in it. The Marx brothers (citation needed, I'm not a history buff) didn't create the first functioning flying machine on a public budget or under with support of business moguls. They did it themselves, with massive amounts of trial and error, money out of their own pocket (maybe family and friends) and a large helping of mathematical theory.

EDIT EDIT: Wright Brothers* not marx brothers... too many famous bros!

Ragsnstitches:
-snip-

EDIT: Invention, Pure creation, the forging of something entirely new, happens despite financial investments. They have to happen before people will invest in it. The Marx brothers (citation needed, I'm not a history buff) didn't create the first functioning flying machine on a public budget or under with support of business moguls. They did it themselves, with massive amounts of trial and error, money out of their own pocket (maybe family and friends) and a large helping of mathematical theory.

Hehe, it was the Wright Brothers that invented the aircraft, the Marx Brothers were a comedy quartet :)

But yeah, agree with what you said otherwise, refining and making things better is still good, even if it isn't something entirely new. There's been loads of stuff I've donated to on kickstarter that takes established ideas and blends them with others, games that take something and polish it, etc etc. There's plenty of genres and games that I love that ain't gonna get funded otherwise, and I really enjoy watching them come along in this way, as the designers can do what they love, without CEOs breathing down their neck. If a game looks good, even if it's not pushing the envelope, I'll donate if it interests me because I want to play it.

elvor0:

Ragsnstitches:
-snip-

EDIT: Invention, Pure creation, the forging of something entirely new, happens despite financial investments. They have to happen before people will invest in it. The Marx brothers (citation needed, I'm not a history buff) didn't create the first functioning flying machine on a public budget or under with support of business moguls. They did it themselves, with massive amounts of trial and error, money out of their own pocket (maybe family and friends) and a large helping of mathematical theory.

Hehe, it was the Wright Brothers that invented the aircraft, the Marx Brothers were a comedy quartet :)

And I knew that and all... I had a brain fart moment mid sentence and I couldn't think of any other "brothers" other then Marx Brothers and Mario Brothers (yes, the iconic plumber). Thanks for correcting me.

Honestly, I think that he is pouting that his project didnt make it, but it seems to me Kickstarter is just a way for gamers to become EA. Why?

Well we are given the chance to green light projects with the service. Look back at alot of games being made. Sequels, games similar to ones we already enjoy, or the such.

Double Fine Adventures
Wasteland 2
Shadowrun sequel
Ouya (Android pretty much)
Penny Arcade's ad's

The top 4 are the only 'games' that broke a million. Sequels or 'safe' investments. I will say Ouya is a good creative risk though. But look at that, from the list of when it was 'sensationalized', 4 out of 5 of the big funded projects are sequels or 'safe' investments. Im not saying its a bad thing, but there are so many people out there that are calling out publishers/developers for only making sequels, and look at what was funded.

Maybe it's because he's making a game no one is interested in playing? That's a possibility, right?

Judgement101:
Kickstarter is going to be the death of innovation. People like what is familiar so they will throw money at remakes of old games, minecraft variations, and other non-imaginative games. I know this may not be true but based on the games that are currently being largely donated to, it seems like this may end up becoming the truth.

Kickstarter will never be popular enough to kill anything. At the very least Kickstarter is remaking games no one else will - that the big studios won't. So at the very least Kickstarter is helping gaming by remaking games no one else will remake.

If that is the floor of what it can be, it's still a positive. If it can achieve its potential, it's a game-changer.

oh, why do people always sound like douchebags on the internet? "Kickstarter used to be cool, then it got popular." Ughhh grow up

SL33TBL1ND:
Maybe it's because he's making a game no one is interested in playing? That's a possibility, right?

actually id play it. but its a kickstarter with a bad pitch video not intune to the subject matter, it wasnt advertsised at all. heck searching kickstarter didnt even bring it up for most people. im not suprised its failed

nikki191:

SL33TBL1ND:
Maybe it's because he's making a game no one is interested in playing? That's a possibility, right?

actually id play it. but its a kickstarter with a bad pitch video not intune to the subject matter, it wasnt advertsised at all. heck searching kickstarter didnt even bring it up for most people. im not suprised its failed

"No one" is an exaggeration. By no one I mean very few people, as far as gamer demographics go, would put their money in this project. People only have so much money to spend, and there are more games more people are more likely to want to play, and thus, their money goes to those kickstarters.

Any credibility he may have had to talk about what Kickstarter used to be like is lost when you look at his profile on Kickstarter: 0 projects backed.

Judgement101:
Kickstarter is going to be the death of innovation. People like what is familiar so they will throw money at remakes of old games, minecraft variations, and other non-imaginative games. I know this may not be true but based on the games that are currently being largely donated to, it seems like this may end up becoming the truth.

People like what is familiar?

Well, as far as I know we are all people around here, so now just explained why Kickstarter is a great thing that will give us the games that we want to see the most.

Oh, wait, no you didn't. You are just using elitist buzzwords that will sound terrifyingly bleak to the very "people" who are supposedly ging to kill innovation.

Preference of innovation is not an on/off switch, where "People" hate innovation, while only you, My Valiant Fighter For Creativity, want to protect it alone.

It's a sliding scale, where EVERYONE expects enough innovation that at least they will keep entertained and a game won't feel like an uninterrupted looping of the precvious one, and at the same time EVERYONE expects enough familiarity that they can at least relate to a game.

The scale's arguable part is between casual gamers who don't want to waste their time learning new mechanics, or wrapping their head around new stories, and elitists, the kind who actually care about standing up for gaming as an art form, and debating a game's merits based on how much it contributes to the art, how innovative it is, not just how much they enjoyed it as a product.

From that perspective, Kickstarter is already a rather innovation-friendly system, after all it relies mostly on the kind of niche gamers who actively read gaming news, who are dissatisfied with the mainstream gaming industry, and who are ready to give their money for promises of some games, as opposed to general audiences who buy whatever they run into in a shop. In other words, it is pandering to elitists.

That you can STILL phrase it like Kickstarter games are "non-imaginative", is only because of the sliding scale nature of innovation. No matter HOW elitist and innovative and niche a certain system is, you can always portray it as if it ought to be EVEN MORE SO.

I personally would have no interest in playing an "educational game" in this day and age. I work long hours, when I come back home I have earned my couple of hours of entertainment, and when I want them to be educational I'll read a book instead of playing a bad game. I don't think I'm alone in this.

Nightmare99:
That promotional video is the worst. I went from not knowing who he was to wanting to stomp on his face inside the first minute.

His entire presentation is quite poor honestly :/.

Carnagath:
I personally would have no interest in playing an "educational game" in this day and age. I work long hours, when I come back home I have earned my couple of hours of entertainment, and when I want them to be educational I'll read a book instead of playing a bad game. I don't think I'm alone in this.

Educational games have evolved. Education should never be boring because learning is not boring.

A good example is that Civ II game someone was playing. Creating a strategy game that takes into account real world environmental changes would be educational and entertaining.

another problem aside from the boring concept is i didnt really get into gaming until after 2000...so all his early hits are completely unknown to me.

he comes late to a party and brings a can of cheeze whiz and complains that there is hardly any beer left

Eppy (Bored):
Also, was Kickstarter ever 'Semi-Charitable?' I don't know its history that well but I thought the 'no charities' thing was always there.

When I first came across Kickstarter, the impression I was given is that it was trying to encourage people to throw a few pounds/dollars/etc. at a project that they thought really deserved to succeed. So I gave 5 to Zen Table, because it was a cool product that had clearly taken a lot of work and I thought it would be a shame if it failed to make it to market. That's the "charitable" idea. I didn't expect to get anything back for my 5.

There seem to be more an more projects now (especially in some areas) that use Kickstarter mainly to take pre-orders. This is still not a bad thing. Being able to get people's money up front like that can be invaluable for getting a product into production, especially when the alternative is going cap-in-hand to the bank and asking for a business lone. Mantic Games have a great Kickstarter running at the moment that actually offers really good value for money on their plastic miniatures

I've always been told that if I don't have anything nice to say, then I shouldn't say anything. So...

His Bullwinkle impersonation was decent.
Watching his video made me laugh.
His shirt reminded me of Seinfeld.

well i didnt know he was reviving a game.

and i am more exited to see that you can now embed kickstarter videos on this site.

Watch the video. Compare it to Tim Schafer's double fine video.

It's a difference of humor and ego. More humor, less ego and maybe it would have worked. I'm surprised he got as much as he did.

Well of course the most funded things on kickstarter are those done by big name (well, big small name) companies. People like to know when they back something it will succeed, and/or not suck at the other end.

Would you, if you had a hundred bucks, back a game by the creator of psychonauts or some old guy who thinks he is funny and isn't?

Is this a hard question?

thethird0611:
Honestly, I think that he is pouting that his project didnt make it, but it seems to me Kickstarter is just a way for gamers to become EA. Why?

Well we are given the chance to green light projects with the service. Look back at alot of games being made. Sequels, games similar to ones we already enjoy, or the such.

Double Fine Adventures
Wasteland 2
Shadowrun sequel
Ouya (Android pretty much)
Penny Arcade's ad's

The top 4 are the only 'games' that broke a million. Sequels or 'safe' investments. I will say Ouya is a good creative risk though. But look at that, from the list of when it was 'sensationalized', 4 out of 5 of the big funded projects are sequels or 'safe' investments. Im not saying its a bad thing, but there are so many people out there that are calling out publishers/developers for only making sequels, and look at what was funded.

Shadowrun returns isn't a sequel, its just named in a way that makes it sound like one. There were older shadowrun games, but none of them were even the same genre. The "returns" refers to the setting from the table top RPG called shadowrun as it has lost a lot of popularity and this may bring back the setting. It looks more like fallout to me in terms of gameplay than anything else. I'm not sure, but that is how I understand the page. Sorry if I am being nitpicky.

Also, Ouya is not "pretty much Android." I see people say that all the time. It uses a modified version of an android operating system. Do a quick search for things that run on Linux. They are not all the same thing. You might think of Linux as used for computers, but its used for high speed trains, things that milk cows, nuclear submarines, and particle accelerators. These all serve vastly different functions. Theoretically, Ouya is no more similar to an android phone than any of those to each other. It will make porting games easier, but it isn't the same thing.

Not that you don't have a point. Its easier for people to jump on board with a genre that already exists. I mean being the first person to make any sort of thing is difficult. Imagine the guy who made the first horror movie. It must have been ridiculously difficult, everyone would think he was a crazy person. Same with videogame genres. Still, I don't think there is anything wrong with making games in unpopular genres that would have difficulty finding an audience otherwise.

He spends the first minute out of his four minute presentation bragging about how great he is. That tells me all I really need to know: he's an arrogant shithead who doesn't know how to promote a game in the modern age, and having failed at that, he's trying to blame Kickstarter.

He needs to just realize that very few people remember who he is, so they're not just going to hand over their money because his name is on it. You actually do have to promote your game and make it, ya know, interesting.

theultimateend:

Nightmare99:
That promotional video is the worst. I went from not knowing who he was to wanting to stomp on his face inside the first minute.

His entire presentation is quite poor honestly :/.

Carnagath:
I personally would have no interest in playing an "educational game" in this day and age. I work long hours, when I come back home I have earned my couple of hours of entertainment, and when I want them to be educational I'll read a book instead of playing a bad game. I don't think I'm alone in this.

Educational games have evolved. Education should never be boring because learning is not boring.

A good example is that Civ II game someone was playing. Creating a strategy game that takes into account real world environmental changes would be educational and entertaining.

One thing to do is not tell people its educational.

people too often associate education with boring.

A GREAT example of an educational game is Crusader Kings II. That game has realistic figures, armies ect going at it, and a lot of things have a button you can click for a Wikipedia entry so you can read up on your enemies or your own nobles!

$150,000 to fund a game you can just pick up for free and with lousy benefits to paying particular amounts (i.e. a shopping bag, a pin, and maybe some in game recognition). Yes, Kickstarter has a semi-charitable compartment to it, but you have to keep in mind you have to market the game still. Thousands of people put Kickstarters up, what makes his project any more interesting that other ones? You could argue that it's because it's an educational game, but part of me wonders what this achieves that Fate Of The World doesn't. Yes, Fate Of The World has a price tag, but if you want an environmental serious game, is it possible to pick a better game?

Seriously, Kickstarter was the wrong venue for a game that's purely educational, has low production values and is a very niche game. He would of probably been better off trying to seek funding from one of the various educational or environmental groups about (governmental or charitable).

From the kickstarter

"The game is only one turn long: you set your taxes and subsidies and then turn the simulation loose to calculate the effects of your policies over the course of the next 60 years. It then presents you with your score, which will usually be negative. For each of the 80 factors, you get a bar graph showing how that factor rose and fell over the course of the 60-year period. By comparing all those bar graphs, you can figure out how everything fits together and figure out the best set of tax and subsidy policies."

Wow. Sounds about as exciting as having an actual job as a lower level accountant.

What an idiot. Plan X Project - Put it on Kickstarter - Blame Kickstarter for lack of public interest. Profit?

It is HIS job to stir up hype, interest and word of mouth. Blaming the hosting site is just pathetic.

I find that though it is pointless to point this out, but aside from this guy's lack of market understanding, and annoying screen presence, he is also a guy who "effectively retired in 1992"
comes back 20 fucking years later, and tries to get people who the majority were just starting to walk when he left, to pay him to remake a game that was practically the definition of "boring guilt trip" before they even said their first word, and every one else, either knew about the game it was based off of, and didn't give a shit because it's a dumb idea, or felt sorry for him and threw him a few dollars...

Because being blatantly ignorant and thinking you're smart for it, DOESN'T PAY, especially when you're trying to sell something to the kind of people who actively peruse kickstarter to look for projects, since those people generally have a brain, and know what they want, and don't want some preachy patronizing moron from a bygone age, trying to turn everyone who already knows shit is bad on this fuckball of a planet is going to go to shit because "WE RUIN EVERYTHING", into some kind of guilt driven hippie.

Thing is, that doesn't solve problems, and hell it might cause some of the more impressionable/stupid members of our community to buy a prius or something and do even more damage to the environment with the processing of chemicals and the overal crap fuel mileage compared to competitive DIESEL FUELLED CARS...

Think of it, if he succeeded, he might have destroyed this little insignificant ball of waste FASTER!

Seriously though... In every single possible way I can express "I'm glad he failed" I'm glad he failed.

Eppy (Bored):
So, what exactly about Kickstarter has changed, if anything? I don't see how anything about Kickstarter is different other than its larger audience. It was always a gamble; this just looks like a gamble that Chris Crawford lost.

Also, was Kickstarter ever 'Semi-Charitable?' I don't know its history that well but I thought the 'no charities' thing was always there.

Kickstarter was defined as "a crowd funding website for creative projects." Currently, the projects with the highest funds raised are games, and some kind of wristwatch. Now Kickstarter seems to be a method of pre-ordering games that haven't been completely built yet. Asking for money to fund something that doesn't exist yet seems charitable enough, or at least an investment of some kind, and not every investment generates a return; the people funding these games should pay particular attention to that.

FelixG:
Some ambitious projects like Planetary Annihilation get funded like crazy. The difference? PA sounds FUN!

Fun is far too subjective a word to describe the final objective of games. We must kill fun for the sake of preserving and advancing games, or we must kill games for the sake of preserving and advancing fun. Many games are not fun, especially competitive games where there is at least one winner (who many experience "fun" during the game) and at least one loser (who most likely does not experience "fun" at the end of the game).

Back in the day, I found the pursuit of mastery to be fun; learning the ins and outs of a system to determine all the ways to pull it apart, exploit the rules and weaknesses of the opponent, and win (occasionally). Now, it seems, that "fun" is described merely as sensory stimulation; bells and whistles and explosions and blinking lights. Kids are so easily entertained these days...

Fiend Dragon:
Seriously watching that video makes me want to punch this guy in the face, its so ANNOYING

I suggest you play Street Fighter... you obviously have some issues with aggression to work out.

Falterfire:
I think his issue was that he didn't market it well enough. One of the reasons the Double Fine Adventure did so well was that word about it spread very quickly to everybody who was interested. If nobody who cares knows it's happening, it's not gonna hit its target.

I doubt running advertisements would have somehow improved the situation. One of the key elements of games funded via Kickstarter is that many of them really are just games that have already been made, with a few changes here and there to make them sound unique or thoughtful. Another key element is that many are projects by developers whose fame faded long, long ago. And for good reason.

Nightmare99:
That promotional video is the worst. I went from not knowing who he was to wanting to stomp on his face inside the first minute.

You are in need of more Super Mario Bros... or need to refrain from Super Mario Bros. for a while. Not exactly sure...

Krantos:
I'm sorry Mr. Crawford, but I think the problem is your expectations.

Also, I believe you value your work a lot higher than other people would.

*ahem*
"people could assist worthy creative projects that might not make it commercially, but still ought to be done"

That right there is your problem. No one else thinks this about your project. Welcome to real life.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure we even needed this article. It's essentially a grown man whining because no one else likes his idea. But he can't admit it's a poor idea, so he instead blames the system.

Awesome. Some body get this man a can of "Wake the hell up."

Games have changed.
It's not about critical thinking, or the quest for mastery.
It's not even about immersion, social commentary, or the exploration of complex subjects.
It's an endless series of duplicated experiences,
developed by individuals who dream of building the exact same games they enjoyed years ago.
Games, and their vast consumption of money and time,
have become a rational, well-oiled business transaction.
Games... have changed.

cursedseishi:
My god that was the most boring piece of crap I've ever had to force myself to read on a website for a game. Plus those rewards? Completely uninspired.

It's no longer enough to contribute to a creative project... people demand REWARDS. That kind of attitude keeps the exploitative methods used by game publishers of squeezing every penny from their consumers alive; pre-order bonuses, DLC, etc. It's not enough just to play a game anymore, you need to get achievements and trophies just for turning it on...

Falterfire:
Oh god. I didn't watch the video until people mentioned it here. 40 seconds in and I want to beat him. No I've never heard of you. I wasn't even BORN when your games came out. So instead of telling me what you did 20 years ago, tell me why you deserve my money NOW. No, don't tell me why you're doing this, tell me what it is I'm paying you to do and why it's worthwhile.

Kids these days are so violent... maybe it's the video games they play...

Judgement101:
Kickstarter is going to be the death of innovation. People like what is familiar so they will throw money at remakes of old games, minecraft variations, and other non-imaginative games. I know this may not be true but based on the games that are currently being largely donated to, it seems like this may end up becoming the truth.

Kickstarter certainly isn't improving innovation, but it won't kill it. It's difficult to look at a project on Kickstarter and say "this has never been done before." If a Kickstarter project is fully funded and sells well, you can bet that the next interation or project from that same developer will be sold by EA or Activision or another large publishing establishment.

Formica Archonis:

If you'll excuse me, I'll be over here throwing money at the Giana Sisters Kickstarter. Seriously, playable demo? Demos = goodness.

The European clone of Super Mario Bros? Maybe Kickstarter WILL kill innovation in games...

thethird0611:
Honestly, I think that he is pouting that his project didnt make it, but it seems to me Kickstarter is just a way for gamers to become EA. Why?

Well we are given the chance to green light projects with the service. Look back at alot of games being made. Sequels, games similar to ones we already enjoy, or the such.

Double Fine Adventures
Wasteland 2
Shadowrun sequel
Ouya (Android pretty much)
Penny Arcade's ad's

The top 4 are the only 'games' that broke a million. Sequels or 'safe' investments. I will say Ouya is a good creative risk though. But look at that, from the list of when it was 'sensationalized', 4 out of 5 of the big funded projects are sequels or 'safe' investments. Im not saying its a bad thing, but there are so many people out there that are calling out publishers/developers for only making sequels, and look at what was funded.

Ouya? The Android gaming platform? Unfurl sails and chart a course for the Sea of Rampant Piracy!

Too many game players want play the same games over and over again.
Chris Hecker's Presentation on "The Dysfunctional Three-Way" in Games

... and I think that's enough for now.

Michael O'Hair:

cursedseishi:
My god that was the most boring piece of crap I've ever had to force myself to read on a website for a game. Plus those rewards? Completely uninspired.

It's no longer enough to contribute to a creative project... people demand REWARDS. That kind of attitude keeps the exploitative methods used by game publishers of squeezing every penny from their consumers alive; pre-order bonuses, DLC, etc. It's not enough just to play a game anymore, you need to get achievements and trophies just for turning it on...

I'll give you a C for effort.

My issues with the rewards has nothing to do with "wanting achievements" or the like, it's that at their core the only value you are investing in is a postcard, a bag, a pin, and at most (or technically at least) a 1/15th chance of someone seeing that you contributed to the game. That isn't going to attract interest at all, basic marketing right there. Its why other people offer insights into their work, dinner with them to talk about their projects, a nifty piece of swag usually priced at a competitive level (which $1000 for a postcard certainly isn't).

He also overestimated what he'd get, clearly, as well as who he'd appeal to. If he wanted to produce a serious simulator for purely educational purposes, he should of worked that angle. This "game" wouldn't see any educational uses til more likely college levels at the least. No one who isn't completely serious about thousands of bargraphs and charts to click through wouldn't want to play it.

Other games have done exactly what he was saying they haven't done, and have done it in a way that, while probably not as in-depth or mind-numbing, still got the point across. I've played them before for a few college classes, and they were worlds more appealing in both function and display, even if I had to run them in DosBox.

He probably should of attempted approaching colleges for possible funding.

He also shouldn't of approached Kickstarter like it was just some charity throwing cash to people I'm guessing either. You present a product in it, list the cost for what it'll take to make and offer in return rewards that are either reasonable and/or enticing based on the amount given. What he was doing was definitely not charitable.

Now in a perfect world? Of course people would happily give others money to support their dreams, and those people would be honest and actually deliver on their promised products, without lying, swindling, or ripping off others to pad your game.
Yet we aren't. Kickstarter has had a couple of scams (that we know of), and money doesn't sprout from the same source that ignorance, blind hatred, or blood that makes them seem so infinite.

If someone wanted to be charitable, they'd of taken that $10 or $10,000 and donated it to Charity. Then ensure that they remember to write it off on Tax Day.

Merciful Zeus that video was PAINFUL to watch! Guy needs to quite bitching and make a better video to promote himself...

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here