Kickstarter Drive Update #6

[Gamma]

But you do realize that some things like i.e. social features may in part contribute to the game's success? And by game success I mean more monies for inXile, and more monies means more games like W2 and for Kick It Forward. It's not like you're selling your soul by agreeing for that. Just try to think out of the box and take the future into account.

[The_A_Drain]

I've nothing further to add than what I said back yesterday but I will say this.

The few of you who've retracted pledges and are using that money in some mis-guided attempt to hold the project to ransom should be fucking ashamed of yourselves.

It's petty, self entitled and childish. You either believed in the teams vision from the outset, or you didn't and should wait until the game is out and you can verify if it's to your liking before you purchase.

I don't want a social feature at all, I'm vehemently against it. But I am confident that the delivered experience will be what I want, and more importantly that it lets the developers make the game they wanted to make.

[Hawkeye]

Social features? Hell no!

I thought this was to be a - stand alone - offline - olds school - RPG. Where did that social feature stuff suddenly come from?

I will be playing this offline. Never was big on online gaming. If I want to chat with someone (very unlikely, as I don´t like chat) I can just open another window and chat there. Posting notes for others? I AM PLAYING THIS THING OFFLINE, HELLOOO!

Maybe I´m just too old and rooted in the old ways, but this is how I see it. Your opionion may vary, of course.


Ralph Hoenig, Germany

[Cattletech]

I don't want social features at the expense of other things.

Adding that stuff in means less manpower for designing, writing, programming, testing and polishing the quests, the combat system, the combat encounters, etc.

I'd much rather that extra money went into making the combat more JA2-like, for instance.

I don't mind if they made it a DLC, perhaps with a separate kickstart.

[Eich]

Just dropping in to give my faint veto about the social integration idea. If I wanted social I would go out in a bar and talk to humans. In a game I want the most unsocial experience possible. I want to lock my door, close my curfew and avoid any human contact whatsoever! For the love of the mushroomcloud, do not spend more than 10.000$ on that idea if you really think it's viable. And please don't make it mandatory. You are killing me man!

[alexlovesinxile]

You either believed in the teams vision from the outset, or you didn't

Or you feel that social features are far outside the scope (or even purity) of the vision you thought you'd signed up for, and are no longer interested in supporting the product.

Maybe there's room there to argue that they aught to still chip in a little for the sake of indie development and DRM free gaming, but not even you are treating the Kickstarter campaign as pure charity - You still expect to be getting a product you want.

[Infinitron]

I've nothing further to add than what I said back yesterday but I will say this.

The few of you who've retracted pledges and are using that money in some mis-guided attempt to hold the project to ransom should be fucking ashamed of yourselves.

It's petty, self entitled and childish. You either believed in the teams vision from the outset, or you didn't and should wait until the game is out and you can verify if it's to your liking before you purchase.

I don't want a social feature at all, I'm vehemently against it. But I am confident that the delivered experience will be what I want, and more importantly that it lets the developers make the game they wanted to make.

Don't tell people what to do with their money. "Ashamed of themselves"? Really? Get a grip, man.

[The_A_Drain]

Or you feel that social features are far outside the scope (or even purity) of the vision you thought you'd signed up for, and are no longer interested in supporting the product.

Maybe there's room there to argue that they aught to still chip in a little for the sake of indie development and DRM free gaming, but not even you are treating the Kickstarter campaign as pure charity - You still expect to be getting a product you want.

I expect to be getting a product. Whether it's 100% how I imagined is not relevant provided it's what the developers want to do with their game and they deliver a product.

It's that simple.

If the game were suddenly a 2D platformer I might agree with you, but a small ancillary social feature that has been expressly confirmed to be entirely optional is another thing. Another thing people are forgetting is that even if you want to pretend it's something other than charitable donation is that Brian Fargo himself is not taking a wage from the Kickstarter, which as far as I'm concerned gives him somewhere around $75,000 wiggle room to do whatever the heck he wants (average experienced designer wage for 2011 * 1.5 years) regardless of who likes it, under the same "It's my money, spend it on what I want you to spend it on" argument.

Don't tell people what to do with their money.

Once you've invested, it's no longer your money. The window of time only exists to prevent un-funded projects from taking peoples money only to have nowhere near enough funds to finish.

[WorstUsernameEver]

I don't really have the time to read 23 pages of a thread, but personally, and I think it's already been pointed out, I'm a little wary about the team implementing features like this on a tight budget, especially when they weren't part of the original design.

One of the reasons Demon's/Dark Souls multiplayer works so well is that it compliments the single player experience perfectly and you can clearly feel that the designers paid a lot of attention to the multiplayer features, making them fit in the setting, the mood, the gameplay flow etc. (Having played the game offline, I certainly don't think it's a *tragedy* not being able to use them, though it did make me feel a bit lonelier.)

Bolting those features on the Wasteland framework though? I'm not sure if it will work smoothly, and solving the design challenges it poses means that a considerable amount of time would be spent on a feature that, and it's getting increasingly clear, the community simply didn't ask for.

Now, social features like that in a dungeon crawler/roguelike? You've got me interested... but not in Wasteland 2 inXile, and especially not in the middle of the Kickstarter fundraising drive.

[mercy1959]

First of all let me say that I don't like the idea of "social" for W2 ! But Brian wrote with bold letters the word "optional", and then posted an update for the update.I believe that after all these comments and reactions the point is taken !

[alexlovesinxile]

I expect to be getting a product.

... that you want. Why the sudden reluctance to say so?

Whether it's 100% how I imagined is not relevant

Maybe there are some people out there who expect the game to be 100% how they imagined it, but it's part of no argument I offered, and I'm willing to bet most of those people withdrawing their funding, or thinking about it, are willing to accept a game that isn't 100% how they imagined it. Sometimes hyperbole makes a point. In this case, it obfuscates.

provided it's what the developers want to do with their game and they deliver a product.

... that you want.

If the game were suddenly a 2D platformer I might agree with you, but a small ancillary social feature that has been expressly confirmed to be entirely optional is another thing.

It's still a shift in vision, or inclusion of a vision, substantial enough to get explicit focus from Fargo, that some people did not intend to pay for.

even if you want to pretend it's something other than charitable donation

Like for instance, a purchase not entirely excluding charity? Did I imagine that the donation tier I signed up for provides me a copy of the product I'm putting my dollar on the table for?

Brian Fargo himself is not taking a wage from the Kickstarter, which as far as I'm concerned gives him somewhere around $75,000 wiggle room to do whatever the heck he wants (average experienced designer wage for 2011 * 1.5 years) regardless of who likes it

See, now there's a reasonable argument that doesn't revolve around self importance, denigration, or hyperbole.

Once you've invested, it's no longer your money. The window of time only exists to prevent un-funded projects from taking peoples money only to have nowhere near enough funds to finish.

The window of time does not only exist to prevent people from taking others money. It exists to allow people the opportunity to withdraw their money. It may be a lame thing to do, which I think is more to the heart of the discussion here than some rather brutally moralized 'facts' about Kickstarter.

[aVENGER]

First of all let me say that I don't like the idea of "social" for W2 ! But Brian wrote with bold letters the word "optional", and then posted an update for the update.

Even if the social features are "optional", a portion of the funds, time and manpower would go into the development of that content:

At 2 million we will increase the staff to make the game more social so that it can become a more shared experience.

The point is, they would be using up a portion of their resources on a feature that the majority of the backers probably don't want. I believe that the backers would rather see those resources spent on something that they can appreciate like a larger gameworld, better artwork or expanded audio.

[stezeb]

I'm currently a member of the 'anti-social' camp. As many others, I felt unpleasantly surprised when I was reading the latest project update. I felt like suddenly the design is changing to attract the masses. Still, I belive that's not the intention. I belive that the intention is to consider implementation of an idea, that could enrich the gameplay experience. Whether it's a good or bad idea, that's up to discussion. We haven't seen yet what's the full concept in dev's heads.

There is one thought I want to share.

Though I couldn't care less about PS3 exclusive games, this discussion actually makes me want to try out this Demon's Souls. I like the idea of a very hard game with a lot of deathtraps occurring without any warning. Your only guide are remains of previous unfortunate adventurers. Without those, you're destined to be killed behind every corner. It sounds to me like an action, dynamic and challenging gameplay with a chance for a lot of comic situations. Sound cool and entertaining. I never played this game yet, so right now I'm rating just the idea, as I understood it from your comments. I don't know whether the actual game really feels this way.
However, it's obvious that central point of this design are those 'social/multipalyer' features. I can't imagine very well, how these features can be transfered to a game, which is Wasteland 2 currently being designed to be. Not without breaking it's originally proposed design.

I'm sceptic about this 'social' featutres, but I'm ready to be proven wrong and even be excited for them. I'm keen what are the dev's thoughts. So, looking forward to read more about this from them...

[mercy1959]

Well what I'm seeing on the update is : "We will post a description of our thoughts in the forums and if YOU the fans still don't want it then we will not fight the majority "

[The_A_Drain]

... that you want. Why the sudden reluctance to say so?

It's not sudden at all. They are only beholden to deliver a product, if it's not precisely what somebody imagined then too bad, the crux of the matter for me is that if people aren't prepared to deal with that to some degree then funding is clearly not suited to them, instead they should wait and verify a product before making a purchasing decision.

It's still a shift in vision, or inclusion of a vision, substantial enough to get explicit focus from Fargo, that some people did not intend to pay for.

Again, if people approached funding a project as purchasing a product then they went about it with the wrong mindset. No product ever reaches its goal precisely as everyone involved imagined it, it'll be lucky if it reaches the shelf as the guy in charge imagines it, let alone 30,000 other people. Whether it's a shift in vision is again questionable, it's optional, cheap to implement and may or may not be mentioned in design documents dating back several years of ideas, we'll never know so we can only assume for now that' it's a shift in our vision. Which again, is not as important to me as the developer's.

Like for instance, a purchase not entirely excluding charity? Did I imagine that part of the donation tier I signed up for provides me a copy of the product I'm putting my dollar on the table for?

As a goodwill gesture for your support. You aren't purchasing the product, nor are you pre-ordering it despite the similarities all you are doing is contributing to the funding of a project that intends to deliver a product to market. Nobody can tell exactly how that product will end up, but much like a large publisher will scrutinize a business plan and demand changes to ensure sales you should be asking yourself if you are comfortable giving the money even if something you care about might change during the course of development. If you aren't comfortable doing that then funding a project might not be a good idea.

The window of time does not only exist to prevent people from taking others money. It exists to allow people the opportunity to withdraw their money. It may be a lame thing to do, which I think is more to the heart of the discussion here than some rather brutally moralized 'facts' about Kickstarter.

Ok, fine. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point as I do not believe it was anything but a side-effect of the intended purpose. Regardless of how true or untrue my assumption about Kickstarter's intentions is, you are right the crux of the matter is that it's an incredibly lame thing to do and that's the main thing that's getting to me, I'll just leave it at that.

I think that it's a good thing such contentious issues cause such passionate debate but at the same time I think a lot of people here (including myself) have over-reacted to cataclysmic proportions to what is going to be a small, ancillary and most importantly optional feature that the developers want to include.

[L1cH]

Brian on every corner you say that you want to do "old-school rpg". And in first video you ridicule angry birds, farmville and other social shit.
And now you say:

At 2 million we will increase the staff to make the game more social so that it can become a more shared experience. We like the concepts of dropping notes into the world for your friends who are playing the game, or perhaps we may allow you to send an item their way from Ranger center to help them out. We are fleshing out the ideas but intend to increase the social aspects of the game without diverting it from being an old school RPG and without hurting the balance.

Are you out of your mind?

I read that you write after:

Everyone remain calm....
There has been a lot of panic that any kind of element of sharing will ruin the classic old school RPG. I think some people are overreacting to the word "social" which I can kind of understand. But here is the bottom line. We will post a description of our thoughts in the forums and if YOU the fans still don't want it then we will not fight the majority. We can now get back to our normal shouting.

It does not change anything. If you seek way to spend money go to http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=336

[The_A_Drain]

Though I couldn't care less about PS3 exclusive games, this discussion actually makes me want to try out this Demon's Souls. I like the idea of a very hard game with a lot of deathtraps occurring without any warning. Your only guide are remains of previous unfortunate adventurers. Without those, you're destined to be killed behind every corner. It sounds to me like an action, dynamic and challenging gameplay with a chance for a lot of comic situations. Sound cool and entertaining. I never played this game yet, so right now I'm rating just the idea, as I understood it from your comments. I don't know whether the actual game really feels this way.
.

Just a word of warning going in (especially if you need to buy a PS3 to give them a try) the only people that describe them that way (in my experience) are people not properly able to deal with the challenges without being told what to do step by step.

There are death traps, and there are unexpected things that will catch you off-guard but it's not more/less designed to kill you without warning as say, traps in Baldur's Gate or something like that. You will notice them if you pay attention, and you will figure out how to get past things if you approach them without rushing in.

For Demon's Souls in particular (not Dark Souls, I felt it was much improved) I felt that the strategic elements of combat were slightly marred by somewhat clunky controls, it just didn't feel 'quite there', and can occasionally result in an unfair death (getting caught in hit-stun between two dogs, for example) but doesn't ruin the experience completely.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the game is indeed pretty difficult, but if you've not subjected yourself to swathes of console games and are going in with the mindset that it's a late 90's or early 2000's game then it won't feel all that difficult.

edit: apologies for the off-topic

[jackass00]

If it will be easy to turn off and ignore I don't really care, and there will probably be people that will find it helpful. I don't get what's the big deal.

[Sobboth]

I'm disapointed.
People who are saying it's optional so it doesn't matter don't get it.
People who are saying it's going to cost money so it does matter don't really get it too.
What is truly sad is it is there is big misunderstanding about what we want this project to be.
Games mechanics, setting, style of graphics all those things are importants and most of us have a different opinions of how it should be done exactly. But all those topics are relevants.
A social aspect is completly "out off topics", at least for me.
I'm quite sure a social aspect like in Dark/Demon's Souls can be a great concept to create a new kind of games/ RPG experience.
But it's like the red boots thing in the first video, it's off topic. Who care about the color of the boots ? what strange idea to ask such a thing. It just show that we don't share the same vision.
To me, it's the kind of things publisher want to include because, you know, games nowadays must have a social aspect, no matter what the concept of the game is.
I didn't though it was so bad to just want a classic cRPG single player game.
I though InXile was happy to create that and i don't want them to create something they dislike.
I don't want to see B.F bitter and thinking "all these retarded hardcore nerds, what a pain in the ass, they don't want anything new. Ok i'm going to give them this old school RPG bullshit".
That's what worries me.

[Infinitron]

Once you've invested, it's no longer your money. The window of time only exists to prevent un-funded projects from taking peoples money only to have nowhere near enough funds to finish.

Actually, it is. Watch me retract it. Bye money!

(no, I haven't actually retracted, but you get the point)