Dennis Dyack working on spiritual sequel to Eternal Darkness, seeks crowdfunding

  • 63 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for CarnageHeart
#1 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

Eternal Darkness was a broken game, but an interesting one which has a cult following, so despite the fact that Dyack has a long track record of failure, perhaps this will get funded.

The graphics in the trailer look a little more cartoonish than one normally sees in a survival horror game, but I think they work. Platform(s?) are unannounced, but we'll find out when this hits Kickstarter on Monday. Three humans (only two of whom seem playable) are shown in the trailer, as are doglike monsters with big fangs and lots of spikes (which look exactly like the monsters in the prison in the second Riddick movie).

http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/05/03/shadow-of-the-eternals-teaser-trailer

Avatar image for Bigboi500
#2 Posted by Bigboi500 (35550 posts) -

Confirmed for Wii U.

Avatar image for lozengez
#3 Posted by lozengez (443 posts) -

Good luck to him.  I can't see how it can possibly meet fan expectations.

Avatar image for CarnageHeart
#4 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

Confirmed for Wii U.

Bigboi500

And PC. Wii U exclusivity would be a suicide pact given the reception to the original. Also, the return of the episodic structure is nice (hopefully some of the character endings will be as brutal as those of the original).

Avatar image for one_plum
#5 Posted by one_plum (6493 posts) -

First game that I might buy in years!

Avatar image for GodModeEnabled
#6 Posted by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -
Carnage you are constantly saying how Eternal Darkness is a "broken" game when it was one of the best games of last generation. Myself and everyone I have known that has played it has never experienced any serious problems with it. You know the game didn't REALLY delete your save file right? Anyways this is awesome news and I hope it turns out well.
Avatar image for keech
#7 Posted by keech (1450 posts) -

Dyack being involved is a pretty good reason to NOT fund this project.  The amount of sleaze Kotaku uncovered in their article about Silicon Knights last year was absurd, and pretty much all of it went back to the fact that Dyack was a self-involved ego maniac who blames everyone else for his failures.  Hence the lawsuit against Epic that ended up costing Silicon Knights millions and pretty much sunk the company.

 

If you look at SK's history, they appear to be nothing but what I call a "Puppet Developer".  Meaning that the only good games they made were when a publisher or separate company above them told SK exactly what to do at all times.

 

Eternal Darkness wasn't good because of Silicon Knights.  It was good because of Nintendo, SK just happened to be the tool Nintendo used to shape the game.

Avatar image for dkdk999
#8 Posted by dkdk999 (6760 posts) -

Dyack being involved is a pretty good reason to NOT fund this project.  The amount of sleaze Kotaku uncovered in their article about Silicon Knights last year was absurd, and pretty much all of it went back to the fact that Dyack was a self-involved ego maniac who blames everyone else for his failures.  Hence the lawsuit against Epic that ended up costing Silicon Knights millions and pretty much sunk the company.

 

If you look at SK's history, they appear to be nothing but what I call a "Puppet Developer".  Meaning that the only good games they made were when a publisher or separate company above them told SK exactly what to do at all times.

 

Eternal Darkness wasn't good because of Silicon Knights.  It was good because of Nintendo, SK just happened to be the tool Nintendo used to shape the game.

keech
Can you back up your claims with links ?
Avatar image for keech
#9 Posted by keech (1450 posts) -

[QUOTE="keech"]

Dyack being involved is a pretty good reason to NOT fund this project.  The amount of sleaze Kotaku uncovered in their article about Silicon Knights last year was absurd, and pretty much all of it went back to the fact that Dyack was a self-involved ego maniac who blames everyone else for his failures.  Hence the lawsuit against Epic that ended up costing Silicon Knights millions and pretty much sunk the company.

 

If you look at SK's history, they appear to be nothing but what I call a "Puppet Developer".  Meaning that the only good games they made were when a publisher or separate company above them told SK exactly what to do at all times.

 

Eternal Darkness wasn't good because of Silicon Knights.  It was good because of Nintendo, SK just happened to be the tool Nintendo used to shape the game.

dkdk999

Can you back up your claims with links ?

 

Sure thing,

http://kotaku.com/5955223/what-went-wrong-with-silicon-knights-x+men-destiny

 

It's a long article btw.  One particularly note worthy part that pertains to the thread topic:

 

This command structure wasn't always such a fatal flaw, former employees said. Before Silicon Knights cut ties with Japanese powerhouse Nintendo following the 2004 release of Twin Snakes, the studio had crucial outside help for game quality, design and process. "This is the reason for the extremely high quality games that SK built a reputation on," says one source. "Nintendo was going to put their name on the game, so it had to be 'Nintendo quality.'"

Silicon Knights' post-Nintendo releases certainly took a dive in quality, based on the low Metacritic scores for Too Human and X-Men: Destiny, so this theory seems plausible. "Once [Nintendo] were out of the picture, SK could do whatever they wanted," a source says. "Denis believed that SK was finally out from under the oppressive nature of Nintendo as a publisher. Once Denis was given more freedom, things started to fall apart.

Avatar image for CarnageHeart
#10 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -
[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]Carnage you are constantly saying how Eternal Darkness is a "broken" game when it was one of the best games of last generation. Myself and everyone I have known that has played it has never experienced any serious problems with it. You know the game didn't REALLY delete your save file right? Anyways this is awesome news and I hope it turns out well.

It didn't delete saves, but the ability to easily defeat non-boss enemies through decapitation and max out both the sanity and health meters (and damage enemies and suchlike) with the constantly refilling magic meter made the game a cakewalk. That is the sort of thing that should have been caught in play testing.
Avatar image for dkdk999
#11 Posted by dkdk999 (6760 posts) -

[QUOTE="dkdk999"][QUOTE="keech"]

Dyack being involved is a pretty good reason to NOT fund this project.  The amount of sleaze Kotaku uncovered in their article about Silicon Knights last year was absurd, and pretty much all of it went back to the fact that Dyack was a self-involved ego maniac who blames everyone else for his failures.  Hence the lawsuit against Epic that ended up costing Silicon Knights millions and pretty much sunk the company.

 

If you look at SK's history, they appear to be nothing but what I call a "Puppet Developer".  Meaning that the only good games they made were when a publisher or separate company above them told SK exactly what to do at all times.

 

Eternal Darkness wasn't good because of Silicon Knights.  It was good because of Nintendo, SK just happened to be the tool Nintendo used to shape the game.

keech

Can you back up your claims with links ?

 

Sure thing,

http://kotaku.com/5955223/what-went-wrong-with-silicon-knights-x+men-destiny

 

It's a long article btw.  One particularly note worthy part that pertains to the thread topic:

 

This command structure wasn't always such a fatal flaw, former employees said. Before Silicon Knights cut ties with Japanese powerhouse Nintendo following the 2004 release of Twin Snakes, the studio had crucial outside help for game quality, design and process. "This is the reason for the extremely high quality games that SK built a reputation on," says one source. "Nintendo was going to put their name on the game, so it had to be 'Nintendo quality.'"

Silicon Knights' post-Nintendo releases certainly took a dive in quality, based on the low Metacritic scores for Too Human and X-Men: Destiny, so this theory seems plausible. "Once [Nintendo] were out of the picture, SK could do whatever they wanted," a source says. "Denis believed that SK was finally out from under the oppressive nature of Nintendo as a publisher. Once Denis was given more freedom, things started to fall apart.

Damn, I don't know if it's safe to say that the only reason why they made good games in the past was because of Nintendo though. I actually liked too human also.
Avatar image for keech
#12 Posted by keech (1450 posts) -

[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]Carnage you are constantly saying how Eternal Darkness is a "broken" game when it was one of the best games of last generation. Myself and everyone I have known that has played it has never experienced any serious problems with it. You know the game didn't REALLY delete your save file right? Anyways this is awesome news and I hope it turns out well.CarnageHeart
It didn't delete saves, but the ability to easily defeat non-boss enemies through decapitation and max out both the sanity and health meters (and damage enemies and suchlike) with the constantly refilling magic meter made the game a cakewalk. That is the sort of thing that should have been caught in play testing.

Gonna play devils advocate here so bare with me.  It's entirely possible that was an intentional design, this is Nintendo we're talking about, with a brand new and unproven IP.  Their games aren't known to be exceedingly difficult to beat, difficult to 100%, but not to beat.  I do agree the game was a cakewalk, but that doesn't make it broken.  For better or worse it just makes it easy.

Avatar image for Buckhannah
#13 Posted by Buckhannah (715 posts) -
Anyone who is tempted to go for this should do the following. Follow me to a dark alley, then give me your money. I will then proceed to kick you in the balls repeatedly with steel toe boots for an hour. This will be a better use of your money. (and depending on your kink, possibly more satisfying!)
Avatar image for teuf_
#14 Posted by Teuf_ (30805 posts) -

Dyack is asking the Internet for money? Oh boy.

Avatar image for c_rakestraw
#15 Posted by c_rakestraw (14870 posts) -

Anyone who is tempted to go for this should do the following. Follow me to a dark alley, then give me your money. I will then proceed to kick you in the balls repeatedly with steel toe boots for an hour. This will be a better use of your money. (and depending on your kink, possibly more satisfying!)Buckhannah

Should try pitching that service to GME. He seems like the type to be into that sort of thing. Or is that Black_Knight I'm thinking of...

Avatar image for Legolas_Katarn
#16 Posted by Legolas_Katarn (15556 posts) -
I'll probably treat this the same way I have been the Jagged Alliance Kickstarter, as much as I would love to see those two games made and turn out well. Not sure I trust the people making them to actually give them any money.

Confirmed for Wii U.

Bigboi500
....That would be one suicidal crowd funding project.

And PC.

That's good
Avatar image for CarnageHeart
#17 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]Carnage you are constantly saying how Eternal Darkness is a "broken" game when it was one of the best games of last generation. Myself and everyone I have known that has played it has never experienced any serious problems with it. You know the game didn't REALLY delete your save file right? Anyways this is awesome news and I hope it turns out well.keech

It didn't delete saves, but the ability to easily defeat non-boss enemies through decapitation and max out both the sanity and health meters (and damage enemies and suchlike) with the constantly refilling magic meter made the game a cakewalk. That is the sort of thing that should have been caught in play testing.

Gonna play devils advocate here so bare with me. It's entirely possible that was an intentional design, this is Nintendo we're talking about, with a brand new and unproven IP. Their games aren't known to be exceedingly difficult to beat, difficult to 100%, but not to beat. I do agree the game was a cakewalk, but that doesn't make it broken. For better or worse it just makes it easy.

That's possible, but I think it was just sloppiness. ED's difficulty slope was reversed, it started of more challenging (due to a lack of swords and magic a the beginning) than it ended.

A similar level of slop on a game design level plagued Twin Snakes. I'm not sure its fair to blame Dyack for that though. Fusing MGS1 levels with MGS2 controls probably doomed the game from the outset and there's also the fact that Nintendo made a big show of giving Kojima and Miyamoto design responsibility.

On the other hand, that sloppiness has shown up in both of Dyack's subsequent games. For my money, Legacy of Kain (which admittedly clung pretty closely to the Zelda formula) remains SK's best designed game.

Avatar image for Buckhannah
#18 Posted by Buckhannah (715 posts) -
For my money, Legacy of Kain (which admittedly clung pretty closely to the Zelda formula) remains SK's best designed game.CarnageHeart
Vae Victis!
Avatar image for keech
#19 Posted by keech (1450 posts) -

Damn, I don't know if it's safe to say that the only reason why they made good games in the past was because of Nintendo though. I actually liked too human also. dkdk999

Don't think you're gonna get much support on liking Too Human.  =)

 

The game spent what?  8 years in development?  I may be wrong, I'm not sure how substantial the rumors around that were, but needless to say it was a long time.  The game should have been polished to a mirror shine with a dev cycle like that.  It's a double standard, but when a game has been in the works for multiple console generations, average at best just doesn't cut it.

 

If Dyack is half the ego-maniac the article paints him as, It's no wonder he refused to just cut his losses and scrap the game a few years in.  Hell it probably would of saved his company.

Avatar image for ZhugeL1ang
#20 Posted by ZhugeL1ang (115 posts) -

Mr. Two Hit Wonder is mounting a comeback. Sorry, but this guy became completely irrelevant for a reason.

Avatar image for Mawy_Golomb
#21 Posted by Mawy_Golomb (1047 posts) -

Eternal Darkness was a broken game, but an interesting one which has a cult following, so despite the fact that Dyack has a long track record of failure, perhaps this will get funded.

The graphics in the trailer look a little more cartoonish than one normally sees in a survival horror game, but I think they work. Platform(s?) are unannounced, but we'll find out when this hits Kickstarter on Monday. Three humans (only two of whom seem playable) are shown in the trailer, as are doglike monsters with big fangs and lots of spikes (which look exactly like the monsters in the prison in the second Riddick movie).

http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/05/03/shadow-of-the-eternals-teaser-trailer

CarnageHeart
Sweet. This is huge news for a console like the Wii U. I've always been curious about Eternal Darkness, so, at the very least, I might be able to play its sequel.
Avatar image for Evil_Saluki
#22 Posted by Evil_Saluki (5217 posts) -

Know what you mean about the original being a broken game, the whole insanity thing was too easy to not fall into, it only happened if you let it, so one of the games main ideas felt missing. I still remember playing it, completing it and enjoying it overall. 

Avatar image for Buckhannah
#23 Posted by Buckhannah (715 posts) -
Eternal Darkness was a patchwork of really good ideas, all poorly executed. Despite that, it was SK's best game post Blood Omen, and the last semi-decent game they ever made. Even if it did look and play like ass. (you could tell a lot of the development for the first half was done on N64)
Avatar image for worlock77
#24 Posted by worlock77 (22552 posts) -

For my money, Legacy of Kain (which admittedly clung pretty closely to the Zelda formula) remains SK's best designed game.

CarnageHeart

And of course for they one they had Crystal Dynamics working with them.

Avatar image for Ish_basic
#25 Posted by Ish_basic (4640 posts) -

The game spent what? 8 years in development? I may be wrong, I'm not sure how substantial the rumors around that were, but needless to say it was a long time. The game should have been polished to a mirror shine with a dev cycle like that. It's a double standard, but when a game has been in the works for multiple console generations, average at best just doesn't cut it.

keech

Supposedly Too Human was in production before they even started with ED. But we know for sure the idea was first pitched in 1993 along with Blood Omen. CD pushed for Blood Omen because they felt it had more mass appeal. They had plenty of time to make it, and it stands as one of the most intentionally unenjoyable games I've ever played. Fun fact: The Soul Reaver was actually originally a weapon from the Too Human universe.

But Dyack always had a problem with managing time and resources. Even on Blood Omen, which spent about 4 or so years in development, Crystal Dynamics had to double his staff at their expense just to get it finished. So, you could definitely argue that even SK's best game is what it is because of outside help.

Avatar image for SupremeAC
#26 Posted by SupremeAC (7521 posts) -

While the trailer looked promising, knowing that it's basically just Dyack asking for money, I'm very sceptical about this.  I'm with Keesh on this one.  The reason ED was any good was because Nintendo was looking over Dyack's shoulder.

I enjoyed the atmosphere, story, and overarching meta-idea that was the multiple play-throughs.  It was an enjoyable and unique game.  If Dyack can live up to the original and build upon the gameplay of the original, I'll definitely buy it for WiiU.  Give him money just because he says he'll do so though, I will not.

Avatar image for JonathanL
#27 Posted by JonathanL (22123 posts) -

While the trailer looked promising, knowing that it's basically just Dyack asking for money, I'm very sceptical about this.  I'm with Keesh on this one.  The reason ED was any good was because Nintendo was looking over Dyack's shoulder.

I enjoyed the atmosphere, story, and overarching meta-idea that was the multiple play-throughs.  It was an enjoyable and unique game.  If Dyack can live up to the original and build upon the gameplay of the original, I'll definitely buy it for WiiU.  Give him money just because he says he'll do so though, I will not.

SupremeAC
Kickstarter is swimming with overpromises and underdeliveries. Dyack seems to be very able to do these without taking my money ahead of time. I know I'd stay far away.
Avatar image for Yama
#28 Posted by Yama (34108 posts) -

I'd love to see it, though it'll be rough to pull of the same atmosphere this generation without a boat load of funding. I hope he does it right, because the game does deserve a sequel imho.

Avatar image for Avenger1324
#29 Posted by Avenger1324 (16344 posts) -

[QUOTE="dkdk999"]Damn, I don't know if it's safe to say that the only reason why they made good games in the past was because of Nintendo though. I actually liked too human also. keech
Don't think you're gonna get much support on liking Too Human. =)

The game spent what? 8 years in development? I may be wrong, I'm not sure how substantial the rumors around that were, but needless to say it was a long time. The game should have been polished to a mirror shine with a dev cycle like that. It's a double standard, but when a game has been in the works for multiple console generations, average at best just doesn't cut it.

If Dyack is half the ego-maniac the article paints him as, It's no wonder he refused to just cut his losses and scrap the game a few years in. Hell it probably would of saved his company.

Dyack's involvement in this crowd-funding is enough to put me off. That man is so full of ****.

Before the release of Too Human you couldn't get the guy to shut up - he was everywhere talking up the game, how cool it was going to be, showing off videos, talking about the potential and the vision for where he wanted it to go - be a 3 part series, take your character with you, yadda yadda yadda...

and then the game got released, the critics absolutely mauled it, and Dyack disappeared off the face of the earth.

Now I will say that I enjoyed Too Human as a game - I completed it a few times with different characters and enjoyed what was there. But what wasn't there was any form of support from SK or Dyack. The moment the negative reviews came in it was like Dyack disappeared off the face of the earth. He wouldn't do any interviews, make any public comments, any press releases about TH. Where was the DLC he spoke about before launch? There are in-game menu options where it is supposed to be - never came. No new levels, missions, areas or enemies - absolutely nothing. Even in interviews a couple of years later, when most fans have given up all hope, if anyone asked him about TH he either refused to comment or gave an answer to a different question - it's like he doesn't recognise he had any involvement with Too Human.

So now when I see Dyack come out talking up a new game, all I see is a repeat of the build up to Too Human - talking up a game and promoting it. But the second things don't go his way, don't expect any kind of support from him or the company making the game. I do remember reading that Kotaku article linked a few posts above, and I think that bit about needing a controlling publisher is spot on. Left to their own devices they will piss away millions, waste years of development and deliver something disappointing. The idea for crowd-funding is that it cuts out the publisher / controlling influence, which in the case of SK / Dyack, is precisely what they need MORE of, not less.

Avatar image for Evil_Saluki
#30 Posted by Evil_Saluki (5217 posts) -

Was going to say something but Avenger went off on one and pretty much said it all.

Avatar image for Bigboi500
#31 Posted by Bigboi500 (35550 posts) -

The 9 minute gamplay video on IGN looks very promising, I hope they get the funding they need.

Avatar image for keech
#32 Posted by keech (1450 posts) -

I'm pleasantly surprised at the responses on this thread.  I'm glad to see people being level-headed about the game, and not just throwing their money at the project simply because it's attempt to ride the reputation of Eternal Darkness.

 

The gaming community and industry needs more of this.  =)

Avatar image for SupremeAC
#33 Posted by SupremeAC (7521 posts) -

The 9 minute gamplay video on IGN looks very promising, I hope they get the funding they need.

Bigboi500


Also, it appears that I had never before seen Dennis Dyack.  He does not look like his imaginary counterpart in my head.  At all.

The in-game bits do look very promising, but I just don't see stuff like this being crowdfunded.  The bit where he talks about backers being able to contribute to the game (actually make bits of models ar write some dialogue) puts me off even more.  Not because I don't believe there are talented people out there, but because Dyack had enough of a hard time managing a small number of people working in his direct proximity, I can only dream of the amounts of work that will be discarded and fear for the quality of the end product in terms of cohesion.
Avatar image for Bigboi500
#34 Posted by Bigboi500 (35550 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

The 9 minute gamplay video on IGN looks very promising, I hope they get the funding they need.

SupremeAC



Also, it appears that I had never before seen Dennis Dyack.  He does not look like his imaginary counterpart in my head.  At all.

:lol:

The in-game bits do look very promising, but I just don't see stuff like this being crowdfunded.  The bit where he talks about backers being able to contribute to the game (actually make bits of models ar write some dialogue) puts me off even more.  Not because I don't believe there are talented people out there, but because Dyack had enough of a hard time managing a small number of people working in his direct proximity, I can only dream of the amounts of work that will be discarded and fear for the quality of the end product in terms of cohesion.SupremeAC
Hopefully he's learned from his mistakes. I don't know how it'll turn out, but I have high hopes for things like crowdfunding. If successful, I could see REAL gamers' games being made without the company bullshit we've grown accustomed to this gen, like catering to the lowest common denominator and the "it's just business" attitude.

 

A village of devs and no evil overlord to squash out passion could create some wonderful things.

Avatar image for SupremeAC
#35 Posted by SupremeAC (7521 posts) -
A village of devs and no evil overlord to squash out passion could create some wonderful things.Bigboi500
Yes, because we all know that when groups of people are left to their own, with not central authority, everything always ends up rosey... With lynchmobs and so forth. Perhaps your analogy isn't the most suited for what you are trying to communicate, but my part right there might be rather accurate as to what we can expect :) Giving gamers a say in what should be part of the game is a tricky proposition, because it could easily end up in a big bag of contradicting ideas that falls flat like a big bag of things would do.
Avatar image for Bigboi500
#36 Posted by Bigboi500 (35550 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]A village of devs and no evil overlord to squash out passion could create some wonderful things.SupremeAC
Yes, because we all know that when groups of people are left to their own, with not central authority, everything always ends up rosey... With lynchmobs and so forth. Perhaps your analogy isn't the most suited for what you are trying to communicate, but my part right there might be rather accurate as to what we can expect :) Giving gamers a say in what should be part of the game is a tricky proposition, because it could easily end up in a big bag of contradicting ideas that falls flat like a big bag of things would do.

I don't think developers are as moronic and unstable as the general gamer who posts on a forum, so I don't think it will be a problem. Letting people who are genuinely interested in making a good product out of love for what they're doing can be better than some Activision boss breathing down your neck, cracking his whip and threatening to fire you if you're not sweating blood, just for a paycheck.

 

I'm sure the "say" they have will be relative to the size of the donation and the contribution they make.

Avatar image for Ilovegames1992
#37 Posted by Ilovegames1992 (14221 posts) -

If he didn't make such immense abortions such as Too Humans he probably wouldn't need to crowdfund it. 

Not many developers i can think of which have only really developed one good game. 

Avatar image for CarnageHeart
#38 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="SupremeAC"][QUOTE="Bigboi500"]A village of devs and no evil overlord to squash out passion could create some wonderful things.Bigboi500

Yes, because we all know that when groups of people are left to their own, with not central authority, everything always ends up rosey... With lynchmobs and so forth. Perhaps your analogy isn't the most suited for what you are trying to communicate, but my part right there might be rather accurate as to what we can expect :) Giving gamers a say in what should be part of the game is a tricky proposition, because it could easily end up in a big bag of contradicting ideas that falls flat like a big bag of things would do.

I don't think developers are as moronic and unstable as the general gamer who posts on a forum, so I don't think it will be a problem. Letting people who are genuinely interested in making a good product out of love for what they're doing can be better than some Activision boss breathing down your neck, cracking his whip and threatening to fire you if you're not sweating blood, just for a paycheck.

 

I'm sure the "say" they have will be relative to the size of the donation and the contribution they make.

Developers no, Dyack yes. Letting a bunch of people on different pages dictate game design, with preference going not to the best ideas, but to the size of the pockets connected to the ideas, strikes me as a recipe for disaster.
Avatar image for Bigboi500
#39 Posted by Bigboi500 (35550 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="SupremeAC"] Yes, because we all know that when groups of people are left to their own, with not central authority, everything always ends up rosey... With lynchmobs and so forth. Perhaps your analogy isn't the most suited for what you are trying to communicate, but my part right there might be rather accurate as to what we can expect :) Giving gamers a say in what should be part of the game is a tricky proposition, because it could easily end up in a big bag of contradicting ideas that falls flat like a big bag of things would do.CarnageHeart

I don't think developers are as moronic and unstable as the general gamer who posts on a forum, so I don't think it will be a problem. Letting people who are genuinely interested in making a good product out of love for what they're doing can be better than some Activision boss breathing down your neck, cracking his whip and threatening to fire you if you're not sweating blood, just for a paycheck.

 

I'm sure the "say" they have will be relative to the size of the donation and the contribution they make.

Developers no, Dyack yes. Letting a bunch of people on different pages dictate game design, with preference going not to the best ideas, but to the size of the pockets connected to the ideas, strikes me as a recipe for disaster.

Well at least it's a different approach from the same ole, same ole. It might die in flames or it could be a great success. One thing is clear: the big budget blockbuster games that require 5 mill to be successful in the eyes of devs/publishers isn't a sustainable business practice in my eyes, because it's not viable to sell that many copies of every game being made.

 

I think if that model stays in place, we'll see even more flash and less substance, and watch as the big games all turn into "cinematic experiences" instead of being great games. I'd hate for this industry to be only that and XBLA/PSN games as our only options.

Avatar image for keech
#40 Posted by keech (1450 posts) -

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="Bigboi500"]I don't think developers are as moronic and unstable as the general gamer who posts on a forum, so I don't think it will be a problem. Letting people who are genuinely interested in making a good product out of love for what they're doing can be better than some Activision boss breathing down your neck, cracking his whip and threatening to fire you if you're not sweating blood, just for a paycheck.

 

I'm sure the "say" they have will be relative to the size of the donation and the contribution they make.

Bigboi500

Developers no, Dyack yes. Letting a bunch of people on different pages dictate game design, with preference going not to the best ideas, but to the size of the pockets connected to the ideas, strikes me as a recipe for disaster.

Well at least it's a different approach from the same ole, same ole. It might die in flames or it could be a great success. One thing is clear: the big budget blockbuster games that require 5 mill to be successful in the eyes of devs/publishers isn't a sustainable business practice in my eyes, because it's not viable to sell that many copies of every game being made.

 

I think if that model stays in place, we'll see even more flash and less substance, and watch as the big games all turn into "cinematic experiences" instead of being great games. I'd hate for this industry to be only that and XBLA/PSN games as our only options.

I do agree that the current publisher mentality of a game not being a success unless it sells 5 million units in the first month will collapse in on itself.  But I just don't see this approach being the solution.  The major break out bit hit games, be it an AAA or an indie title, come from people who spent years in school learning how to make games.  The average gamer has ZERO knowledge of what is happeneing "under the hood" of their favorite games while they are playing them. 

 

I have some of second-hand knowledge for game development from tinkering with the developer kits Valve releases, friends who went to school for it and/or worked for publishers and developers, so more than the average gamer.  I don't have anywhere close to enough understanding of development to make ANY sort of design decisions for a game.

 

It would be like some random nobody demanding a group of automotive engineers make a flying car.  It's possible, but what average job nobody doesn't understand is that the sticker price would probably be around a million dollars (i'm lowballing the hell out of that) due to the astronomical costs of R&D and production.  It would also be the size of a tank and be as loud as one.  Oh and anyone who owns one would have to get a private pilots license to even operate it, and it would probably cost a few thousand dollars a month to fuel up if driven as often as the average car.

 

Now imagine if you have a hundred different people all making demands just as outrageous, and the truth is gamers tend to put unrealistic expectations onto games all the time as is.  Just look at these very forums, no matter how good a game is you always see people talking about how much they hate it, that it sucks, that they were so let down, ect.

Avatar image for CarnageHeart
#41 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"] Developers no, Dyack yes. Letting a bunch of people on different pages dictate game design, with preference going not to the best ideas, but to the size of the pockets connected to the ideas, strikes me as a recipe for disaster.keech

Well at least it's a different approach from the same ole, same ole. It might die in flames or it could be a great success. One thing is clear: the big budget blockbuster games that require 5 mill to be successful in the eyes of devs/publishers isn't a sustainable business practice in my eyes, because it's not viable to sell that many copies of every game being made.

I think if that model stays in place, we'll see even more flash and less substance, and watch as the big games all turn into "cinematic experiences" instead of being great games. I'd hate for this industry to be only that and XBLA/PSN games as our only options.

I do agree that the current publisher mentality of a game not being a success unless it sells 5 million units in the first month will collapse in on itself. But I just don't see this approach being the solution. The major break out bit hit games, be it an AAA or an indie title, come from people who spent years in school learning how to make games. The average gamer has ZERO knowledge of what is happeneing "under the hood" of their favorite games while they are playing them.

I have some of second-hand knowledge for game development from tinkering with the developer kits Valve releases, friends who went to school for it and/or worked for publishers and developers, so more than the average gamer. I don't have anywhere close to enough understanding of development to make ANY sort of design decisions for a game.

It would be like some random nobody demanding a group of automotive engineers make a flying car. It's possible, but what average job nobody doesn't understand is that the sticker price would probably be around a million dollars (i'm lowballing the hell out of that) due to the astronomical costs of R&D and production. It would also be the size of a tank and be as loud as one. Oh and anyone who owns one would have to get a private pilots license to even operate it, and it would probably cost a few thousand dollars a month to fuel up if driven as often as the average car.

Now imagine if you have a hundred different people all making demands just as outrageous, and the truth is gamers tend to put unrealistic expectations onto games all the time as is. Just look at these very forums, no matter how good a game is you always see people talking about how much they hate it, that it sucks, that they were so let down, ect.

When I read your post, this image came to mind.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRR7oTqnJSW4A2lHtdJB3A

Avatar image for UpInFlames
#42 Posted by UpInFlames (13301 posts) -

Well, they're asking$1.5 million for the first episode! :lol:

This ain't gonna happen.

Avatar image for SupremeAC
#43 Posted by SupremeAC (7521 posts) -

Well, they're asking$1.5 million for the first episode! :lol:

This ain't gonna happen.

UpInFlames
But-but... The following episodes will be much cheaper! Seriously though, no matter how tantalising that gameplay trailer was, no matter how much I'd love for this to become as good as it could and should be, I don't see it happening. Also, episode 1, consisting of 12 chapters? How long is he going to spin this yarn? It'll be a game with no end, as there are many series of books and comics. Give me a contained story, not 12 chapters that might or might not conclude anything. Although the incentive to pledge $150 is rather neat. A signed and numbered character art sheet. I could see those becoming very valuable (especially since the game will never end up being made).
Avatar image for ReddestSkies
#44 Posted by ReddestSkies (4087 posts) -

1.5 million? Really? As much as I loved Eternal Darkness for its ambitious ideas, it was broken in an unforgivable way. As was mentioned in this thread, the difficulty curve was inverted; the game was somewhat difficult early on, became progressively easier and then in the later levels, you're invincible. Game design 101: the first levels must be easier than the last ones. And it's not like you can really trust Dyack because on his other projects...

Also, it was a Gamecube niche game. Their crowdfunding goal is unrealistic, which is a strong sign of incompetence. 1.5 million is what was raised for Dreamfall Chapters, and that's the conclusion of The Longest Journey series, which everyone and their mother played and loved, and it's being made by people who can be trusted to deliver.

Avatar image for UpInFlames
#45 Posted by UpInFlames (13301 posts) -

I think they shot themselves in the foot with the Wii U version which is probably driving up the cost significantly and I certainly don't see this game with this model being successful on that platform. I don't even see the console audience open enough or even particularly familiar with the crowdfunding concept. It just seems like a bad decision overall.

Also, they're crowdfunding it through the official website only instead of using Kickstarter which many developers proved to be crucial for raising funds. Even then, even on Kickstarter, far better designers who made some legendary games had to work really hard to get to their target.

Avatar image for keech
#46 Posted by keech (1450 posts) -

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

Well, they're asking$1.5 million for the first episode! :lol:

This ain't gonna happen.

SupremeAC

But-but... The following episodes will be much cheaper! Seriously though, no matter how tantalising that gameplay trailer was, no matter how much I'd love for this to become as good as it could and should be, I don't see it happening. Also, episode 1, consisting of 12 chapters? How long is he going to spin this yarn? It'll be a game with no end, as there are many series of books and comics. Give me a contained story, not 12 chapters that might or might not conclude anything. Although the incentive to pledge $150 is rather neat. A signed and numbered character art sheet. I could see those becoming very valuable (especially since the game will never end up being made).

I'm assuming they are releasing the chapters individually?  Which would probably be over the span of at least a year, probably more?  Yeah no thanks.  I don't feel like dedicating potential years being drip fed this game only to have it go under without any sort of conclusion or closure like so many TV shows do.  Being asked to drop my own money on it just adds to the "nope" column.

Avatar image for CarnageHeart
#47 Posted by CarnageHeart (18316 posts) -

I think they shot themselves in the foot with the Wii U version which is probably driving up the cost significantly and I certainly don't see this game with this model being successful on that platform. I don't even see the console audience open enough or even particularly familiar with the crowdfunding concept. It just seems like a bad decision overall.

Also, they're crowdfunding it through the official website only instead of using Kickstarter which many developers proved to be crucial for raising funds. Even then, even on Kickstarter, far better designers who made some legendary games had to work really hard to get to their target.

UpInFlames

Unlike Kickstarter, Dyack's new company takes money as soon as it is pledged and the fact of the money isn't determined by whether or not the minimum is hit (if they don't get all they money they want, they will still keep all the money they get, ostensibly to use on ED2).

Avatar image for UpInFlames
#48 Posted by UpInFlames (13301 posts) -

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

I think they shot themselves in the foot with the Wii U version which is probably driving up the cost significantly and I certainly don't see this game with this model being successful on that platform. I don't even see the console audience open enough or even particularly familiar with the crowdfunding concept. It just seems like a bad decision overall.

Also, they're crowdfunding it through the official website only instead of using Kickstarter which many developers proved to be crucial for raising funds. Even then, even on Kickstarter, far better designers who made some legendary games had to work really hard to get to their target.

CarnageHeart

Unlike Kickstarter, Dyack's new company takes money as soon as it is pledged and the fact of the money isn't determined by whether or not the minimum is hit (if they don't get all they money they want, they will still keep all the money they get, ostensibly to use on ED2).

Oh. Well, that's another reason not to support it then.

Avatar image for keech
#49 Posted by keech (1450 posts) -

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

I think they shot themselves in the foot with the Wii U version which is probably driving up the cost significantly and I certainly don't see this game with this model being successful on that platform. I don't even see the console audience open enough or even particularly familiar with the crowdfunding concept. It just seems like a bad decision overall.

Also, they're crowdfunding it through the official website only instead of using Kickstarter which many developers proved to be crucial for raising funds. Even then, even on Kickstarter, far better designers who made some legendary games had to work really hard to get to their target.

CarnageHeart

Unlike Kickstarter, Dyack's new company takes money as soon as it is pledged and the fact of the money isn't determined by whether or not the minimum is hit (if they don't get all they money they want, they will still keep all the money they get, ostensibly to use on ED2).

Wow, that's shady as all hell.  No way I would back this when It's not being done through Kickstarter or any similar system.  This whole thing just reeks of past Dyack and Silicon Knights issues.  They clearly don't have a whole lot of faith in the project, and also clearly don't want someone like Kickstarter telling them to give everyone their money back if they don't meat the pledge goal.

Avatar image for haziqonfire
#50 Posted by Haziqonfire (36344 posts) -

Well, they're asking$1.5 million for the first episode! :lol:

This ain't gonna happen.

UpInFlames
Good luck to them. lol.