Print

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

[alexandertnt]

Spore - [snip] Good game

...really? ...how? How can someone consider the stripped-down kindergarten-level lacking-anything-beyond-pretty-colours toy that is Spore a good game, especially after you saw what it could have been? Why are you so sure SC won't go the way of Spore? Sure, they don't have a publisher. This means they can just say 'Hey, this realistic planet depiction/procedural generation of the universe/ship physics simulation/whatever is too complex. Let's just strip it away and leave two screens with three buttons in its place!' and there won't be anything anybody will be able to do about it.

Seriously, imagine it. They get their millions and we get a Generic Space Combat Simulator 304 after several years of waiting. Is it possible? Entirely, even likely. Do people overlook this possibility? Verily.

Well, the Creature Creator was pretty entertaining. But I'm not entirely sure why you are having such a strong emotional reaction to someone liking a game you don't. Some people like toys.

It's all great and fine that you are not overlooking the possibility that it will be bad, but you seem to have almost decided already that it will be bad. You have gone to the other extreme. You wan't to see a game like this done, but the second its announced you just assume they are greedy fucks and decide it will fail.

Do you want a game with this level of complexity? If so, how would they going about pleasing you (Or at the very least avoid being insulted) before they even have a chance to do anything?

[Dunamisdeos]

Look guys, all I meant was that:

a: Game publishers nowadays are far, far more concerned with sales than they used to be, to the final
    product's detriment.

b: I have heard too many early-dev promises that never happen. This whole thing sounds too good to be
    true, and based on previous experience, some or many of these features are not going to happen.

c: My sole return for my investment is going to be "fun". I am not guaranteed fun. It is like paying for a
    crate of apples at the grocery store, but the crate may or may not contain angry bees. I have had bees
    in the crate before. I have had apples before. What is in this crate? It's not my money back if it
    happens to be bees, I can tell you that.

[Elfeater]

c: My sole return for my investment is going to be "fun". I am not guaranteed fun. It is like paying for a
    crate of apples at the grocery store, but the crate may or may not contain angry bees. I have had bees
    in the crate before. I have had apples before. What is in this crate? It's not my money back if it
    happens to be bees, I can tell you that.

Well least you could make honeyed apples =)

[Neonivek]

Well Dunamisdeos it isn't so much that

"Game publishers are more concerned with sales"... the difference between now and back then is simply that the formula for a popular game with the least amount of effort is known.

My formula for the quality of games is as such. In the early days of PC games there were a lot more absolutely dreadful games but there were more great ones too. Even the terrible games now adays tend to be rather playable and somewhat fun.

B) It always happens... but that is why you always look at games with a critical eye. Rather then just dislike the fact that developers actually share with you what they want to do with the game.

C) Yes this is what they call Investment.

[jocan2003]

Look guys, all I meant was that:

c: My sole return for my investment is going to be "fun". I am not guaranteed fun. It is like paying for a
    crate of apples at the grocery store, but the crate may or may not contain angry bees. I have had bees
    in the crate before. I have had apples before. What is in this crate? It's not my money back if it
    happens to be bees, I can tell you that.

Exactly how publisher thinks, and thats mainly why we get shallow game, no-one wants to risk their money, can we blame them? I mean if you are sitting on milion and are scared to risk a small% of your money yeah you can blame them, its called being greedy, but if the next project might make you loose half your money, thats something to consider. FUCK!!! did i just spoke FOR publisher?..... Somebody burn me upside down into a volcano...

[alexandertnt]

Look guys, all I meant was that:

c: My sole return for my investment is going to be "fun". I am not guaranteed fun. It is like paying for a
    crate of apples at the grocery store, but the crate may or may not contain angry bees. I have had bees
    in the crate before. I have had apples before. What is in this crate? It's not my money back if it
    happens to be bees, I can tell you that.

Exactly how publisher thinks, and thats mainly why we get shallow game, no-one wants to risk their money, can we blame them? I mean if you are sitting on milion and are scared to risk a small% of your money yeah you can blame them, its called being greedy, but if the next project might make you loose half your money, thats something to consider. FUCK!!! did i just spoke FOR publisher?..... Somebody burn me upside down into a volcano...

That's pretty much it. Investments are risky, and publishers are going to aim for the thing that will most likely make profit, rather than risk.

This is why crowdsourcing is interesting, since there is no publisher involved to breathe down the neck of the developers. It is however, more risky.

[jocan2003]

Crowdfunding is more risky yeah but instead of one company loosing a milion and forced to either close/sell/repurpose whatever on a blind guess, the devlopers actually knows if the game will sell or not after the campaign, you succeed/ good now go work and give us what we want. It failed? well too bad, think again about your plana nd come back later, or go work for EA.

[Moghjubar]

Saw this, threw money at it, first time I've funded a crowdsource thingy as well... figured if I'm going to break my crowdsource block it would be for the guy that made the games I most enjoyed.

It does seem to offer a lot of options right now (MMO! Private MP! SP! Free Waffles!), so I was a bit wary of that... however, I would rather them try and have to make a decision to cut rather than not try at all (and I am certain some things will get cut too).

Also, Spore discussion derail: if Spore had been crowdfunded, would it have actually been awesome?

[Neonivek]

if Spore had been crowdfunded, would it have actually been awesome?

Yeah I think so

Mind you many of the things cut from the 2005 video were later discovered to be impossible (Ragdoll was an example) so in many ways a lot of the complaints would have never been resolved.

However the #1 thing cut that would have made the game amazing is the focus on science, learning, and philosophy. Will Wright and Waterson fought HARD for the game to retain that feel but lost. It doesn't surprise me that this crushed Will's will.

This would have made a less gamey Spore and frankly... that would have made ALL the difference. Spore needed to be a self-narrative game that focused more on feel then on balance. More on learning about survival and evolution then about amplifying your strength to become strong.

Ultimately a Crowd Sourced Spore would have saved it. It wouldn't have given you the 2005 video Spore... but it would have given us something many times greater then what we got. A timeless game. An instant classic. It would be the kind of game a lot of people still play today and years from now, a kind of game that makes us once again think of videogames as a true and honest artform. One that when people talk about the greatest games ever made, this could end up being discussed. Certainly not in raw gameplay but in just the effect it had on everyone who played it.

It is that raw gameplay is not the most important aspect of a game.

[Dariush]

Also, Spore discussion derail: if Spore had been crowdfunded, would it have actually been awesome?

Yes, most likely, especially with that 2005 video instead of empty promises.

[Neonivek]

Also, Spore discussion derail: if Spore had been crowdfunded, would it have actually been awesome?

Yes, most likely, especially with that 2005 video instead of empty promises.

Well... no... that 2005 video would have never happened. They discussed that in one video and a lot of the things you saw in that video they later discovered was rather... impossible.

[10ebbor10]

Also, Spore discussion derail: if Spore had been crowdfunded, would it have actually been awesome?

Yes, most likely, especially with that 2005 video instead of empty promises.

Well... no... that 2005 video would have never happened. They discussed that in one video and a lot of the things you saw in that video they later discovered was rather... impossible.

thruve seems to be doing just that though.

[Alkhemia]

This looks pretty good will see how it turns out.

On the spore thing it was an meh game I had some fun with it but I don't really want to install a virus on my computer just to play a meh game.

[Tilla]

YOLO. I'm throwing in my money because if it works out even halfway I will be pretty god damn stoked. $30 is not a huge amount of money to help out something this ambitious.

I've heard some word they actually do have investment something along the lines of $15 to 20 million, they just need to show off the interest level and get their development going ahead to take advantage of it. This seems similar to what I hear about movie productions - IE you can get a ton of investment by seeding something yourself.

[Moghjubar]

Looks like they started a kickstarter too: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen