Kickstarter Drive Update #6

[Brother None]

I just have to add that if you pull your funding because of this one small element, you've missed it..

And I'll just quote myself from pages and pages back

It's a little dramatic, perhaps, but it's their money, their good right. Even more so, for many people the money they pledged isn't just about the money, it's about making a statement. So if they no longer feel comfortable making the statement "I support this", they should withdraw. Sure, it's a minor niggle to withdraw over, but that's the way it works.

Could you guys please stop trying to make it sound like there's something wrong with a person opting to withdraw his fully voluntary pledge, his own money to decide with? I mean, don't get me wrong, if you're going to try to badger InXile by going "but I pledged this much so you should listen!" or "I'll withdraw my pledge if you don't listen!" you'll probably just get ignored, but the other end of it is just as true, it is their own money, and they can decide fully to do with it themselves. Please do NOT talk down to people for making decisions with their own money.

[northrop]

Small ancillary social feature that is optional != Farmville.

How many times does it have to be repeated?

As many times, and it has to. You'd be surprised how many people don't understand the words they read. Every time inXile posts and update, it seems the same group of people get outraged. When they announced the Kicking it Forward initiative, people outraged, because they didn't understand words like "profit" or "after the game has shipped". This is similar, and words like "optional" or "we're thinking about it" completely confuses some people.

Personally, I gave it a little bit more time to think about all of this, and I agree with Fargo, some social 'things' should be in the game. An ability to exchange items at the Ranger Station with friends is a good idea, and I like it. I'm not sold on the 'dropping notes' idea, but again, this is completely optional.

We still have no clue where they'll go with this, so there's no reason to write anything more beyond this point. I'll just wait for an update.

[DerRidda]

I don't care either way, would prefer a Baldur's Gate style "Just tag along and control party members" co-op mode but let me quote myself from the Kickstarter comments:

If people get pissed off by options they will not have to utilize at all then no one can help them but a good psychiatrist.

I personally have seen the argument "I don't want any money _wasted_ on X!" a hundred times in the forums already and these are probably the ones lighting up the torches and sharpening the pitchforks. It's some kind of "I payed taxes so the government asks for my approval on every spending they undertake!" We've all heard this before I guess.

Frankly this was bound to happen so it's better to flip these people off before they have actually spend any kind of money so the outrage will be smaller when there is a feature implemented some people don't like after the funding is done.

And btw. if you removed or lowered your pledge because of this in a way that doesn't let you participate in the beta anymore you are such a genius. This way you'll never be able to help shape the social feature in a way that you feel appropriate.

[runciter]

I think that if I had to choose, I'd rather have cutscenes than "social aspects". Since this is not a multiplayer game, I don't want it to connect to the internet for any reason. Exchanging items isn't social, it's breaking the fourth wall and cheating.

[Jack Dandy]

I'd like to hear more about what Fargo has in mind about these kind of features, before deciding whether I'd like to see them happen or not.

[imhotep]

I agree that integration of these social elements can work if it is done right and woven into the game, like in Dark/Demon's souls. But to me it seems that the game mechanics and whole design approach has to take this type of an approach into account. On the first note, I do not like the sound of that.

Dark/Demon's souls kinds of social elements also make a lot of sense on a console, as there is no easy way of communicating with an average co-player. Not all console players have keyboards or web-cams with their PS3s. With PC's, however, everyone has a keyboard and messaging features come embedded to the OS. PC's also have this thing called multitasking to run those communications in the background while gaming. Hence, any simple in-game messaging schemes do not add much actual value.

To this date, no cRPG game has been perfect, and most likely never will. There has always been limitations in the amount of interactions between the PC and the game world, like environment, items, and NPCs. Due to budget and time constraints, there always is a limited amount of quests, dialogue and alternative ways to solve things. Often, the engine also limits the size of the game world. I would like to see these things being tackled and the limits pushed as far as possible before including purely optional elements what many would assign a lower priority. Often we get these DLCs that try to remedy the situation, but then happen in a totally separate universe without most items you had due to design and testing limitations.

I think that a big part of love to the modding scene comes from trying to overcome those limitations (cf. above). Furthermore, some games like Little Big Planet or Minecraft successfully commonize the modding allowing people to actually be a part in constructing the gameworld and developing the game, and then share the results with others. Perhaps cRPGs could also benefit from lowering the bar to include new content to the game.

[alexlovesinxile]

if it's not precisely what somebody imagined

I sincerely doubt that that is the problem for most of these people.

Regarding everything else, we seem to have a fundamental disagreement on what exactly Kickstarter's function, between gamer and developer, is - i.e. what agreement we thought we were entering into when we donated our money. Now, you seem to be implying that those of us who have taken our money back (I haven't, but might) consider our donations some kind of entitlement fee to get exactly what we want. This is really not the case, at least for me.

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.

I can agree with that. It's very grating to see people play word mash-ups like "Wasteville" or similar.

[Kide]

It is of course their own decision what everyone want's to do with their own money. I just don't like the feeling of threath's or such that have seem to be "around" in some other cases as well. That just to me seem's to go overboard and kind of against of what I thought we were trying to do (to avoid 3 party's involment, so that the developer's can make the game that they want to make/ and whitch still in most part is still what we have waited for just as well).

If someone want's to back down from this for what ever reason it is their choise though, even if you can't really say what part of your money for example would be going to some aspect you do not care about, there might be enough of those supporter's still in there that they would actually be paying for this kind of feature with their money and not with the money that comes from the people who do not care for this feature.

But Brother none is right that it's still everyone's own decision. But it's also my decision not to agree with that kind of action. And I think if someone has the right to say as they do that they don't want their money spend on this then I have the right to say that I don't care where my money exactly is put as long as they can make the game with no publisher's influence.

We just need to wait for the exact idea of what he has in mind/ his team has in mind and have good poll choises in the case. (Like are you definitly against it, you actually would want it and want to use it, or if you do not care too mutch if it is put on or not if it is optional to have it on.) Need to wait and see and also about the estimation of time and money spend as I am sure that will contribue to the decision making as well.

[The_A_Drain]

Regarding everything else, we seem to have a fundamental disagreement on what exactly Kickstarter's function, between gamer and developer, is - i.e. what agreement we thought we were entering into when we donated our money. Now, you seem to be implying that those of us who have taken our money back (I haven't, but might) consider our donations some kind of entitlement fee to get exactly what we want. This is really not the case, at least for me.

Not necessarily. I just think a lot of people (this is not the first time I've seen a kickarted project have it's community in uproar) view the purchase as a pre-order and while that's the simplest comparison that the target market (in this case, gamers) will understand it's not really accurate. Even if we've disagreed on what we feel Kickstarters goals and intentions were and how those do or don't apply, once that money is locked in, it's locked in. You're not seeing it again.

Regardless what my opinion is on people threatening to withdraw, I also feel like some of them are missing something in what it was they agreed to. Ok, so some people feel like this particular issue is outside the remit of the project, that's cool I can get on-board with that and I can see why that would change the project significantly enough in peoples eyes as to merit deciding not to fund.

But I'm a bit concerned that if someones not comfortable with the decision to commit that money how long before we see a small but violent backlash from certain groups of people because they don't like the save system? Or the character creation system? Or the friggin' menu screen, and that perhaps not backing at all and instead waiting for the final product before making a purchase decision is best for some people.

I've seen it happen unfortunately, and I've seen people demand their money back months into a funded project. I don't want to see that happen here because I'd like to keep the community spirit high, have a good laugh with some great, intelligent people as we watch it all happen and then play a great game at the end of it. Instead I'm reminded hour after hour if why I stopped frequenting forums for this genre (I'm not going to name names, that would be douchery).

I can agree with that. It's very grating to see people play word mash-ups like "Wasteville" or similar.

Yeah this is pretty grating.

[Brother None]

I just don't like the feeling of threath's or such that have seem to be "around" in some other cases as well. That just to me seem's to go overboard and kind of against of what I thought we were trying to do (to avoid 3 party's involment, so that the developer's can make the game that they want to make/ and whitch still in most part is still what we have waited for just as well).

Hmmm? I think you should perhaps read Fargo's pitch, interviews and Kickstarter statements again. The goal was not to make a game with no 3rd party involvement/influence at all, the goal was to shift this involvement away from publishers and to the fans. Hell, he repeats this over and over and over, perhaps even too much, so it's hard to miss.

Speaking with your wallet is certainly a good way of providing feedback. I personally don't agree, sure, I haven't changed my pledge, and I won't because I fully expect this feature to be shot down by the community, but this whole "complaining about other people's pledges" was getting out of hand.

So please: Stay focused on the topic of what this means for Wasteland 2 here rather than discussing one another. Even though this is all fairly superfluous until InXile puts up their proposal thread, but there's even less point to it if we're just going to waste time bantering about what we don't like about how other people talk.

[Kide]

Brother None I can agree with the fact that it is getting out of hand. Just in some other cases it has getting out of hands too in my opinion here in the forum's, or close. There's just many different kind of people in here and different kind of things everyone likes.

And yes input as of opinion's. It's good to have opinion's, but still I trust that they can implement things in the best way, I am no designer. I can only say what I think I will like and what I think I won't like. Like the fact that I have never felt 3D graphics to be as immersive or have as mutch feeling as 2D graphics (like arcanum isometric). I still won't decide whitch ones will be used as it also depends on the budget etc (as I can't know everything). I can say my opinion, but I won't and even don't want to be the exact deciding factor. As that might be even limiting to the designer's of the game. I don't know if I make sense or not, but overall I have felt that there's many argument's in here for more than few things so it certanly is hard to balance all the different opinion's out.

But let's wait for the exact information onthe social feature and then have good voting option's, where I would choose the one that say's that I don't think I will use such a feature, but if they wish to make such a thing in game itäs their choise.

[Tetraptous]

I have no problem with the proposed social features--I can see them adding something to the game if incorporated with restraint. I don't have a great feeling for how much development time would be required, if a lot then I'd rather see the effort spent elsewhere, but if it's inexpensive, it sounds good to me. Nonetheless, unless there a new wave of media coverage, this Kickstarter doesn't seem likely to hit $2M. Donations are following a bit of a logarithmic curve, and look like they'll top out around $1.8M or so.

[The_A_Drain]

I have no problem with the proposed social features--I can see them adding something to the game if incorporated with restraint. I don't have a great feeling for how much development time would be required, if a lot then I'd rather see the effort spent elsewhere, but if it's inexpensive, it sounds good to me. Nonetheless, unless there a new wave of media coverage, this Kickstarter doesn't seem likely to hit $2M. Donations are following a bit of a logarithmic curve, and look like they'll top out around $1.8M or so.

Fortunately this one has a big enough name attached to it that it should see a second big round of media coverage a couple days before it ends, perhaps a direct comparison isn't appropriate but the Double Fine one managed to cover something insane like 300k in the last 5 or 6 hours as people on the fence pledged like mad. I personally know something like 20 people who are on the fence, and will very probably give a 15 buck pledge. Also the day before it ends is when we get student loans in the UK haha

[Goral]

Will the social feature make the game better? I don't see how. Will it make it worse? Possibly, since by leaving notes or items some gamers would get spoilers, tips, walkthroughs and other unnecessary things they could get by other means than via game itself (there will always be forums, IRC, instant messengers, Facebook, twitter and hundred other means to do the same without interfering with the world in the game). What's more it would be at the expense of more important things.

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

Really? You would spend extra cash to make Wasteland 2 more social?

Bottom line, Brain Fargo and his team will do what they think is best but I don't like this latest idea even one bit. And I'm really getting scared right now because seeing ideas such as these being considered I'm not so sure any more that I'll get the old-school game I've been waiting for since 1998. The way I see it this idea shouldn't even come up.

[Bonecrusher]

I can understand you like these things, we understand these things are not the same thing than Facebook, ect...
Now you should understand than for a good part of old school gamer immersion/atmosphere is the key and these things didn't help.
So instead of taking old school RPG gamers for complete idiot, you should wait, you know quietly, because i can tell you these comments excite more than anything else some of us. Now do as you want of course.

don't worry bro, I am playing games since Atari 2600 / Pong machines.
I had Commodore 64, 386 PC, Amiga, SNES, Gameboy, SS, PS1, PS2, PS3, and I am still buying new PCs regularly.

I played Ultima series, Bard's Tale series, Might&Magic series, Fallout series etc...
I am probably an "old school RPG gamer" in your definition.

However, I still like to see additions and improvements in games I play.
As I mentioned, Dark Soul words is a great social improvement. Why? Because it almost gives you a feeling that playing with a friend. I liked that feeling.
Also, if you don't like that feature, you can easily turn it off. Or simply, ignore the words, and don't look at them?

I don't like conservative people who claims they are "old school gamers".
Man, if gamers from Ultima times were conservative like this, we wouldn't even get games like Fallout.

Try to think out of box.

How will this "social" aspect positively influence gameplay other than by being "cool"?

I think its a worthless feature and shouldn't be included. It really doesn't belong in the game. like yuck

* waste of time and effort to add something like this in. focus on making a great RPG with a compelling story!!! I will probably drop my support if this makes it in. Go down to the $15 tier.

easy answer: you can turn it off from the main menu.

stop acting like 12 years old.

[Brother None]

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

Really? You would spend extra cash to make Wasteland 2 more social?

Honestly, I think this is a bit of a misstatement. I mean, all the money goes to expanding staff or paying for outsourcing work. The staff/work-hours will increase all the time as donations go up. But yes, one of the things that increased staff would spend time on would be social features, at least until they get voted down.

[stonetoes]

So please: Stay focused on the topic of what this means for Wasteland 2 here rather than discussing one another. Even though this is all fairly superfluous until InXile puts up their proposal thread, but there's even less point to it if we're just going to waste time bantering about what we don't like about how other people talk.

Brother None, you've said yourself that there's nothing to actually vote on yet since we don't know inXile's plans yet, so I'm not sure what you expect people to discuss here then?

The crux of the issue for me is that I don't want to have to wade through masses of negativity for the next 18 months every time something slightly different to fans' expectations is announced. I'm guessing it's quickly going to become a real chore to even lurk here, let alone try to contribute. I was already reticent about dipping my toe in the waters here because of all the negativity and hostility before the infamous update #6. Even the "must include" forum, which should be all about people making positive suggestions of the things they like, is all naysayers shooting down ideas.

And I agree with your posts earlier saying that it's everyone's right to withdraw their pledges. The point of contension is more what those people are going to do for the 18 months of development. They won't have the option to simply walk away once the kickstarter ends, so how are they going to express their dissatisfaction? I'm guessing by sheer volume of posts on this forum, which is going to get pretty tiresome to slog through.

For me, the issue of social elements pales in comparison to the issue of how fan feedback is going to function at all and how we create a community that we can all be a part of.

[Vryheid]

Could you guys please stop trying to make it sound like there's something wrong with a person opting to withdraw his fully voluntary pledge, his own money to decide with? I mean, don't get me wrong, if you're going to try to badger InXile by going "but I pledged this much so you should listen!" or "I'll withdraw my pledge if you don't listen!" you'll probably just get ignored, but the other end of it is just as true, it is their own money, and they can decide fully to do with it themselves. Please do NOT talk down to people for making decisions with their own money.

There's nothing wrong with people taking out their donations because a game doesn't live up to their expectations. It could be about any reason- who knows, someone might not want the color blue in Wasteland 2 and withdraw their funding because of that. On the other hand, a lot of people do enjoy having some basic social elements. I think the comments on the Kickstarter page and the continuing stream of donations are testament to this.

What IS wrong is people acting like Brian Fargo is the last savior of the RPG industry and that the only way to prevent him from being "corrupted" by modern RPG influences is to whine about it and threaten to start bad publicity. This Kickstarter project is more important than just one game, it's helping shape the public view on the feasibility of crowd funding in general. If the developers get the perception that the only way to survive on donations is to be held hostage be an unpleasable fanbase, this could hurt the chances of potential future Kickstarter projects as well.

[Bonecrusher]

I think that Fargo will have no choice but to remove any form of 'social' elements due to the fiercely strong opposition from the community and strong backers.

Having said, yes, I agree, no social references of any kind. This isn't Dark Souls or Demon's Souls, this is Wasteland, the sequel to a classic CRPG. This should be anything BUT gimmicky.

some people in the forums tell the same phrase over and over "This is sequel for Wasteland, an old school rpg" and strongly oppose the improvements for the game.

because of these people, i hope it will not turn into a game made for just Amiga II, Commodore 64 and DOS platforms, with 1988 graphics. lol.

[DreadWolf7]

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

Really? You would spend extra cash to make Wasteland 2 more social?

Honestly, I think this is a bit of a misstatement. I mean, all the money goes to expanding staff or paying for outsourcing work. The staff/work-hours will increase all the time as donations go up. But yes, one of the things that increased staff would spend time on would be social features, at least until they get voted down.

I have no doubt they will be voted down as people don't seem to care what they may or may not be.
They don't bother reading or thinking about it they just say hey something i don't understand and go DO NOT WANT!

and before you think i am hating on oldschool gamers or RPG gamers or what have you I am one for 20 years i have played and waited to play games like this but i also have an open mind and won't go off and say something is bad just because i don't want it my self.