Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sjm9876]

Personally, that would depend. If the game was not the same as the vision shared in the kickstarter, then I'd be disappointed, for obvious reasons. If it's as advertised, just late, then I'd be perfectly happy - I personally view kickstarter as donating to something, rather than preordering. I more or less operate under the assumption that they're going to fail.

[forsaken1111]

Speaking as someone who didn't back the game but has followed the development, I'd say pretty firmly that I could enjoy the game despite the development drama if the game is actually good. BUT! I will certainly be more critical of the product because of the drama and drawn out development issues. I'll be looking for flaws my first run through.

[Neonivek]

Here's a question...

As a backer of over 10 KS games now, having watched the sausage get made on various games at various states of development....

Let's say the game does eventually come out. Do the missed deadlines, compromises, rushed things, taint the entire game experience? If it released would you even be able to enjoy it the same way as you might have if it hit all its deadlines (or at least most)? Would you, generalized you, be able to step back from the months of disappointment and judge the game strictly on its merits? Or is all this pre-release stuff part and parcel of the game experience and judgments about it?

Honestly what sours me about the games I've kickstarted (of the five I've actually kickstarted or otherwise) is more when a game just ends up bland or a shadow of its advertised self.

I'd almost prefer it never be released then it being bad.

[nenjin]

I feel that way about some Kickstarter games, like Shadowrun Returns. To date I think Darkest Dungeons is probably the strongest example of concept --> execution. It's fairly true to what was originally hyped, and is a solid game on top of that.

[Mephansteras]

Here's a question...

As a backer of over 10 KS games now, having watched the sausage get made on various games at various states of development....

Let's say the game does eventually come out. Do the missed deadlines, compromises, rushed things, taint the entire game experience? If it released would you even be able to enjoy it the same way as you might have if it hit all its deadlines (or at least most)? Would you, generalized you, be able to step back from the months of disappointment and judge the game strictly on its merits? Or is all this pre-release stuff part and parcel of the game experience and judgments about it?

Might make me a bit less likely to play it on release, but I'll eventually get around to it. At that point, the question is how good of a game it is, not the drama.

[nenjin]

I guess let me elaborate.

It's not a "good game vs. bad game" determination. More an overall general eh....that, even if it IS ultimately a good game, nukes your enthusiasm for it. I've noticed playing a lot of games in EA or Kickstarter previews that attempting to get into the game when it's not there detracts from my overall perception of a game's awesomeness.

An example: War for the Overworld. Got where it needed to go eventually but after months and months of incremental upgrades. Or Darkwood, which has always continually polished the overall game systems while it still has the same basic content (Chapter 1 of the game.) Both of them are "good games" but due to my extended relationship with them (whether that's piecemeal upgrades or missed deadlines), all them feels doesn't just magically "go away" when they release. You in a sense can never experience a game for the first time, twice. Likewise, in lieu of a game to play, all you really have is the disappointments that form the foundation of your relationship to it.

There's some EA games for me that, even though I'd recommend them, I can't recommend them with genuine hype because watching a game incrementally grow over time has tempered my enthusiasm.

[Malus]

I don't really have a problem with drawn-out development cycles, so long as there are actual, y'know, releases. I mean we're on the Dwarf Fortress forums -- surely all of us understand following the development of a game over a sustained period of time. I've been playing Dwarf Fortress for 7 years and I still get hyped for new releases.

Things might get a bit murkier when you pay money for a game, but I have a different philosophy than most people. I think Patreon is probably closer to my platonic ideal of game development -- rather than having a dev team sink tons of their own (or publisher) money into a product and then gamble on the possibility that it sells well whenever (if ever) the game releases, finding fans who are willing to pay to be a part of the creation of the game, offset the cost of development, and just generally keep the cogs turning seems like a much better idea. Instead of paying a company for a game, and then that company pays the programmer's salary, why not just crowdsource the programmer's salary?

If there was a playable version of That Which Sleeps, even if it was buggy, unfinished, whatever -- I'd happily toss $10 or $20 a month to the devs for as long as they kept working on it and releasing updates. That's not $10 or $20 to get access to the game, that's $10 or $20 with the understanding that I, alongside many others at various price points, am funding the free availability of the game for everyone, Dwarf Fortress-style.

There's an important caveat here: I don't think this development model would work for every game. It wouldn't even work for most games. But for games like Dwarf Fortress, Rimworld, Aurora, Factorio, Minecraft, and yeah -- That Which Sleeps -- I think it's viable. Games where development doesn't just end. Probably most games that derive their value from mechanics rather than story.

[Neonivek]

But for games like Dwarf Fortress, Rimworld, Aurora, Factorio, Minecraft, and yeah -- That Which Sleeps -- I think it's viable. Games where development doesn't just end.

But... Rimworld has a stopping point... a realistic one too.

[Malus]

But for games like Dwarf Fortress, Rimworld, Aurora, Factorio, Minecraft, and yeah -- That Which Sleeps -- I think it's viable. Games where development doesn't just end.

But... Rimworld has a stopping point... a realistic one too.

Sure, it does. But it doesn't have to stop there. Rimworld's a game based largely around emergent stories. Any additional features can only deepen the storytelling potential. I can imagine a dozen possible expansions that would only add to the game. A more robust psychology system, colony justice, deeper interaction with the planet's inhabitants, etc. Stuff that's not easily moddable. You could let a developer work on Rimworld for five years and there'd still be things worth adding to the game. None of it's essential, but it's a work that could be extended almost indefinitely, much like Dwarf Fortress.

[Cthulhu]

Sure, TWS could have an interminable dev cycle like those but the difference is TWS hasn't actually produced anything.

Dwarf Fortress will probably be in alpha until Toady can no longer see his screen to type.  But it exists. 

The thing that really broke it for me was finding out Fenicks has never actually played the game or seen it being played. That and the absence of any word from these supposed in-house alpha testers.  I'd be willing to bet the 50 bucks I spent on this that the game doesn't exist in any form that could be considered a game, and that if it ever did exist that was a long time ago.

[Majestic7]

You know, after having watched the internet develop since early 1990s, I've come to the conclusion that the social side of the internet is very toxic. Negativity, trolling and vomiting your traumas/mental problems/whatever on others is just... the norm. People are expected to live with it instead of treating others positively like in real life. Maybe it is partially because people unable to interact in real life pour all their social needs out here. Maybe it is because of the nerd fallacies regarding acceptance, where nerds accept behavior unacceptable elsewhere since they know themselves what exclusion is like.

What does this has to do with TWS? Well, I think kickstarts (and early access) expose game developers to toxic communities in a way that can poison the development. We all know gaming fans are a fickle beast and can be horrible, but at least if you are dealing with a finished product they can't affect you that much. When we are talking about unfinished products and especially indie developers with emotional attachment to their product, the effect is much greater. I'm not saying toxic fans killed or even affected TWS, but maybe they had an effect. If you are depressed and then just see shitposting berating you everywhere, is it wonder if it kills your motivation even further? (I remember that disturbed dude that had an unhealthy obsession about TWS and how it sucks and even came here to spill his bullshit.)

On the other hand, some games are ruined by the developers becoming hostage to their early access fan. For example, I think the Mordheim game suffers from this. There was a small vocal group on the forums that clearly hijacked the development and to please them, the makers of the game put in several mechanics that drove the game into a niche position it wouldn't otherwise be in. I'm sure the game had reached a wider audience otherwise.

So yeah, if I was a indie dev, I'd actually avoid interacting with fans too much. (Or alternatively, hire someone to do that interaction for me and try to avoid reading shit too much.) Support is great, but fanbois can make you blind to your faults while toxic community can poison your motivation.

[Cthulhu]

The environment was extremely encouraging for a very long time.  The Vordrak thing was the first time things actually started getting nasty and it was absolutely not the norm when it happened.

I'm upset because if I paid into the game under what I now think were false pretenses. 

[ZebioLizard2]

On the other hand, some games are ruined by the developers becoming hostage to their early access fan. For example, I think the Mordheim game suffers from this. There was a small vocal group on the forums that clearly hijacked the development and to please them, the makers of the game put in several mechanics that drove the game into a niche position it wouldn't otherwise be in. I'm sure the game had reached a wider audience otherwise.

Honestly, even with those mechanics to please the 'multi' crowd, Mordheim has so many issues that even with those removed it'd still be a pretty meh game, Many skills are still straight up horrible and not worth taking in any situation, half the magic in the game is about on par with those terrible skills.

[hops]

!remind me 10 years later

[MasterFancyPants]

The thing that really broke it for me was finding out Fenicks has never actually played the game or seen it being played. That and the absence of any word from these supposed in-house alpha testers.  I'd be willing to bet the 50 bucks I spent on this that the game doesn't exist in any form that could be considered a game, and that if it ever did exist that was a long time ago.

I remember looking at this when it was going to be a small game about controlling monsters. Honestly, reading that makes me think there never was a game. Surly if things are that bad they could push something out? At least a detailed gameplay video.

Further, I think you guys are giving the people way to much leniency. The did take your money and even though people call KS donations. You are donating so that a game will be made. I'd be damn upset If I found out that Toady One hadn't been working on DF for 6 months.


Then again, I'll only reading the thread drama. So, I don't really know anything.