Why would you NOT want to see it funded? I can understand...if you don't like the idea, don't wanna play it, but why would you be against it funding?
Better yet,why wouldn't the hundreds of investors out there that would lol at this small amount,not invest in it?
I'll tell you why,you need something to show them,a concept done on a small scale.IMO he has nothing but a couple vids that would have taken one guy a day to setup,not much effort there and they prove nothing to an investor.
Look how much money NCSOFT tossed at Lord British,millions,they offerred him a guaranteed 20 million dollar job,his brother a high tier job.Know why,because he had something to show them.
I think people are confusing the term "NICHE" with low budget game design,they are not the same thing.A niche game would be like FFXI or Eve ,this is nothing more than talk,which we all know is cheap,presidents give speeches all the time about how wonderful they will make your lives.
If he wants to make this game happen and have support,tell him to offer up SHARES.That way you know it is legit and he is serious about player support,otherwise it looks like free handouts to a wealthy guy.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Soo... How not to do a KS = The exact same way nearly every KS is done?
No, the way many (I'd even go so far as to say "most") kickstarters are done (or should be done) is for a aspiring devloper to make a rudimentary product showing he/she has the skill/talent to actually make a good game, then request the funding so they can quit their day-job or higher more developers to actually make the product.
Now while mark jacobs may have experience making mmos, he's also respoinsible for the "ATROCITY" to all mmo kind that was warhammer online, it was a game that seemed great on "PAPER" (Sound familiar?) but the completed product was one of if not the worst big budget mmo ever made by man. In a less civilized world he's have been dragged out back and shot for making that by millions of people who bought it.
I'll never back this project, simply because he's the guy who would be making it. Personnaly I wouldn't trust this guy to work fast food.
The games I have followed elite, SC have had little more than concepts and artwork on show, they funded on the basis of people liking the developers previous games, elite and freelancer.
I agree. And in those cases they have previous products of the developer's talent/skill as evidence that the project/kickstarter is worth funding. In the case of Camelot Unchained the previous product of the lead on the project was so bad that it's now a standard by which to teach aspiring mmo developers what to never ever do. Hence why I have no faith whatsoever in this project, despite the fact that I love the core concept of this proposed game.
This isn't a matter of me disliking the proposed game. It's a matter of the wrong person being behind that game. It's like having a brilliant game concept being proposed by EA games, the end result won't even be a pale shadow of what could have been.
To find an intelligent person in a PUG is not that rare, but to find a PUG made up of "all" intelligent people is one of the rarest phenomenons in the known universe.
Originally posted by ShakyMo Well unlike swtor and rift it definetly won't be Yet Another Wow Clone.
Absolutely no chance of anything wowish about it.
So change the world - no Definetly offer something different, much like eve does - yes
Mark said awhile back that if CU does even half as well as EVE has done he'll be happy.
People need to think of CU as fantasy EVE with more Vikings
I certainly *hope* that ends up being an accurate description. EVE really has accomplished something great, though. Too early to tell if it it's going to happen here. If it does I'll be pumped. The concepts thus far really are leaning towards that direction, though.
And this is where the problem comes in. This huge irrational backlash against WAR. Really I dont recall ever being given the impression it was anything revolutionary. WAR was just another AAA MMO trying to follow that "appeal to everyone" model and beat WoW at its own game. It wasnt really any worse than any of the others. Calling it an "atrocity" is pretty harsh compared to the other games we've seen released in that market.
But if you have a problem with WAR, that problem is with the principles on which it is built. The game functions. You can log in today and interact with other players if you want. Same with DAOC. Whether or not he can make a functioning game isnt in question.
He's taken the time to lay out all of his ideas and basic principles for this new game ahead of time and get feedback from the community. He's being as open about the development process as possible by letting us in at the ground floor so that we as players can actually discuss and influence the game before mechanics get set in stone.
While it may be convenient and emotionally satisfying to drop the blame for everything you disliked in WAR on one guy, its honestly just silly. He was one guy involved in the project. He didnt own the studio. He was just an employee of EA after his investors forced the sale of Mythic to EA a few years earlier.
Can he make a functioning game? Yes, most likely. The question is... can he make a "good" game.
My issues with Warhammer Online are in no way irrational, to say so is irrational in and of itself. The game tanked, hard. The concept of the game as it was proposed and in fact marketed, was not the final product. Now you can pass the blame to EA or any other number of things, but the fact it, mark said he was making game A, and instead we got a watered down, and unfinished game B.
I can claim to you I'm going to make the greatest space sim man has ever seen, with ships made of real sized destructable atoms, all run in real time. And by your logic, if the game I deliever is a space sim of marginal or less quality, missing the very thing I marketed it to you on, then I delivered in making a game, thus I deserve to be funded on space sim 2.0. The simple truth is, I don't deserve it, and I should be shunned from the gaming community/buisness for my half-assed attempt.
To find an intelligent person in a PUG is not that rare, but to find a PUG made up of "all" intelligent people is one of the rarest phenomenons in the known universe.
And this is where the problem comes in. This huge irrational backlash against WAR. Really I dont recall ever being given the impression it was anything revolutionary. WAR was just another AAA MMO trying to follow that "appeal to everyone" model and beat WoW at its own game. It wasnt really any worse than any of the others. Calling it an "atrocity" is pretty harsh compared to the other games we've seen released in that market.
But if you have a problem with WAR, that problem is with the principles on which it is built. The game functions. You can log in today and interact with other players if you want. Same with DAOC. Whether or not he can make a functioning game isnt in question.
He's taken the time to lay out all of his ideas and basic principles for this new game ahead of time and get feedback from the community. He's being as open about the development process as possible by letting us in at the ground floor so that we as players can actually discuss and influence the game before mechanics get set in stone.
While it may be convenient and emotionally satisfying to drop the blame for everything you disliked in WAR on one guy, its honestly just silly. He was one guy involved in the project. He didnt own the studio. He was just an employee of EA after his investors forced the sale of Mythic to EA a few years earlier.
Can he make a functioning game? Yes, most likely. The question is... can he make a "good" game.
My issues with Warhammer Online are in no way irrational, to say so is irrational in and of itself. The game tanked, hard. The concept of the game as it was proposed and in fact marketed, was not the final product. Now you can pass the blame to EA or any other number of things, but the fact it, mark said he was making game A, and instead we got a watered down, and unfinished game B.
I can claim to you I'm going to make the greatest space sim man has ever seen, with ships made of real sized destructable atoms, all run in real time. And by your logic, if the game I deliever is a space sim of marginal or less quality, missing the very thing I marketed it to you on, then I delivered in making a game, thus I deserve to be funded on space sim 2.0. The simple truth is, I don't deserve it, and I should be shunned from the gaming community/buisness for my half-assed attempt.
Describing WAR as:
Originally posted by Kazuhiro
the "ATROCITY" to all mmo kind
Is irrational. Yes, irrational is the correct word to use in that context. There are certainly a few very good reasons to dislike WAR, there are plenty of issues with it. However you are making an emotional argument, not a logical one.
When Mythic acquired the Warhammer IP rights and started working on the concept of WAR (game A), the studio was largely controlled by MJ. About a year later the studio was bought out by EA (link). With them controlling the company the game was never going to be anything other than an attempt to cash in on the WoW 2.0 craze. You have to cut out and simplify all sorts of ideas when youre target audience suddenly becomes every breathing human being with access to a credit card.
That is what happens when big money buys into a bubble. Innovation is risky, copying something thats profitable sounds safer to them. Its no more rational to lay all the blame on MJ for WAR than it would be to blame the dev team over at Bioware that created Dragon Age for that horrific sequel of an "rpg" that EA pushed out, or (substitute here any of the other popular concepts EA has bought up without understanding what made them popular in the first place). This isnt a one time thing, its a trend. Its basically EA's business model (outside of rereleasing Madden every year of course).
When you are an officer of a large publicly traded corporation you have legal obligations. You can lose a lot more than your job if you go on camera and start telling fans that your new game isnt finished but the company is pushing it out anyway.
And this is where the problem comes in. This huge irrational backlash against WAR. Really I dont recall ever being given the impression it was anything revolutionary. WAR was just another AAA MMO trying to follow that "appeal to everyone" model and beat WoW at its own game. It wasnt really any worse than any of the others. Calling it an "atrocity" is pretty harsh compared to the other games we've seen released in that market.
But if you have a problem with WAR, that problem is with the principles on which it is built. The game functions. You can log in today and interact with other players if you want. Same with DAOC. Whether or not he can make a functioning game isnt in question.
He's taken the time to lay out all of his ideas and basic principles for this new game ahead of time and get feedback from the community. He's being as open about the development process as possible by letting us in at the ground floor so that we as players can actually discuss and influence the game before mechanics get set in stone.
While it may be convenient and emotionally satisfying to drop the blame for everything you disliked in WAR on one guy, its honestly just silly. He was one guy involved in the project. He didnt own the studio. He was just an employee of EA after his investors forced the sale of Mythic to EA a few years earlier.
Can he make a functioning game? Yes, most likely. The question is... can he make a "good" game.
My issues with Warhammer Online are in no way irrational, to say so is irrational in and of itself. The game tanked, hard. The concept of the game as it was proposed and in fact marketed, was not the final product. Now you can pass the blame to EA or any other number of things, but the fact it, mark said he was making game A, and instead we got a watered down, and unfinished game B.
I can claim to you I'm going to make the greatest space sim man has ever seen, with ships made of real sized destructable atoms, all run in real time. And by your logic, if the game I deliever is a space sim of marginal or less quality, missing the very thing I marketed it to you on, then I delivered in making a game, thus I deserve to be funded on space sim 2.0. The simple truth is, I don't deserve it, and I should be shunned from the gaming community/buisness for my half-assed attempt.
Describing WAR as:
Originally posted by Kazuhiro
the "ATROCITY" to all mmo kind
Is irrational. Yes, irrational is the correct word to use in that context. There are certainly a few very good reasons to dislike WAR, there are plenty of issues with it. However you are making an emotional argument, not a logical one.
When Mythic acquired the Warhammer IP rights and started working on the concept of WAR (game A), the studio was largely controlled by MJ. About a year later the studio was bought out by EA (link). With them controlling the company the game was never going to be anything other than an attempt to cash in on the WoW 2.0 craze. You have to cut out and simplify all sorts of ideas when youre target audience suddenly becomes every breathing human being with access to a credit card.
That is what happens when big money buys into a bubble. Innovation is risky, copying something thats profitable sounds safer to them. Its no more rational to lay all the blame on MJ for WAR than it would be to blame the dev team over at Bioware that created Dragon Age for that horrific sequel of an "rpg" that EA pushed out, or (substitute here any of the other popular concepts EA has bought up without understanding what made them popular in the first place). This isnt a one time thing, its a trend. Its basically EA's business model (outside of rereleasing Madden every year of course).
When you are an officer of a large publicly traded corporation you have legal obligations. You can lose a lot more than your job if you go on camera and start telling fans that your new game isnt finished but the company is pushing it out anyway.
So what your saying is, is that the reason why WAR was rubbish, wasnt because of the developers, but because EA made them do it.. come to think of it, as daft as that sounds, its kind of believable
And this is where the problem comes in. This huge irrational backlash against WAR. Really I dont recall ever being given the impression it was anything revolutionary. WAR was just another AAA MMO trying to follow that "appeal to everyone" model and beat WoW at its own game. It wasnt really any worse than any of the others. Calling it an "atrocity" is pretty harsh compared to the other games we've seen released in that market.
But if you have a problem with WAR, that problem is with the principles on which it is built. The game functions. You can log in today and interact with other players if you want. Same with DAOC. Whether or not he can make a functioning game isnt in question.
He's taken the time to lay out all of his ideas and basic principles for this new game ahead of time and get feedback from the community. He's being as open about the development process as possible by letting us in at the ground floor so that we as players can actually discuss and influence the game before mechanics get set in stone.
While it may be convenient and emotionally satisfying to drop the blame for everything you disliked in WAR on one guy, its honestly just silly. He was one guy involved in the project. He didnt own the studio. He was just an employee of EA after his investors forced the sale of Mythic to EA a few years earlier.
Can he make a functioning game? Yes, most likely. The question is... can he make a "good" game.
My issues with Warhammer Online are in no way irrational, to say so is irrational in and of itself. The game tanked, hard. The concept of the game as it was proposed and in fact marketed, was not the final product. Now you can pass the blame to EA or any other number of things, but the fact it, mark said he was making game A, and instead we got a watered down, and unfinished game B.
I can claim to you I'm going to make the greatest space sim man has ever seen, with ships made of real sized destructable atoms, all run in real time. And by your logic, if the game I deliever is a space sim of marginal or less quality, missing the very thing I marketed it to you on, then I delivered in making a game, thus I deserve to be funded on space sim 2.0. The simple truth is, I don't deserve it, and I should be shunned from the gaming community/buisness for my half-assed attempt.
Describing WAR as:
Originally posted by Kazuhiro
the "ATROCITY" to all mmo kind
Is irrational. Yes, irrational is the correct word to use in that context. There are certainly a few very good reasons to dislike WAR, there are plenty of issues with it. However you are making an emotional argument, not a logical one.
When Mythic acquired the Warhammer IP rights and started working on the concept of WAR (game A), the studio was largely controlled by MJ. About a year later the studio was bought out by EA (link). With them controlling the company the game was never going to be anything other than an attempt to cash in on the WoW 2.0 craze. You have to cut out and simplify all sorts of ideas when youre target audience suddenly becomes every breathing human being with access to a credit card.
That is what happens when big money buys into a bubble. Innovation is risky, copying something thats profitable sounds safer to them. Its no more rational to lay all the blame on MJ for WAR than it would be to blame the dev team over at Bioware that created Dragon Age for that horrific sequel of an "rpg" that EA pushed out, or (substitute here any of the other popular concepts EA has bought up without understanding what made them popular in the first place). This isnt a one time thing, its a trend. Its basically EA's business model (outside of rereleasing Madden every year).
When you are an officer of a large publicly traded corporation you have legal obligations. You can lose a lot more than your job if you go on camera and start telling fans that your new game isnt finished but the company is pushing it out anyway.
From what I read, Mythic ran out of money making Warhammer and needed EA to step in and help fund the remaining development. If EA treated Mythic the same as EA treated Bioware, which i'm sure they did seeing as how publishers do not really interfere in the 'creative process' of making a game, Mythic, and Mark Jacobs dug their own grave, or as Greg Zeschuk put it 'gives you enough rope to hang yourself'.
As much as I would love to see another PvP MMO out on the market, I think all of the concerns about Mark Jacobs running a company are real and cannot be pushed aside by excuses about EA's involvement.
And this is where the problem comes in. This huge irrational backlash against WAR. Really I dont recall ever being given the impression it was anything revolutionary. WAR was just another AAA MMO trying to follow that "appeal to everyone" model and beat WoW at its own game. It wasnt really any worse than any of the others. Calling it an "atrocity" is pretty harsh compared to the other games we've seen released in that market.
But if you have a problem with WAR, that problem is with the principles on which it is built. The game functions. You can log in today and interact with other players if you want. Same with DAOC. Whether or not he can make a functioning game isnt in question.
He's taken the time to lay out all of his ideas and basic principles for this new game ahead of time and get feedback from the community. He's being as open about the development process as possible by letting us in at the ground floor so that we as players can actually discuss and influence the game before mechanics get set in stone.
While it may be convenient and emotionally satisfying to drop the blame for everything you disliked in WAR on one guy, its honestly just silly. He was one guy involved in the project. He didnt own the studio. He was just an employee of EA after his investors forced the sale of Mythic to EA a few years earlier.
Can he make a functioning game? Yes, most likely. The question is... can he make a "good" game.
My issues with Warhammer Online are in no way irrational, to say so is irrational in and of itself. The game tanked, hard. The concept of the game as it was proposed and in fact marketed, was not the final product. Now you can pass the blame to EA or any other number of things, but the fact it, mark said he was making game A, and instead we got a watered down, and unfinished game B.
I can claim to you I'm going to make the greatest space sim man has ever seen, with ships made of real sized destructable atoms, all run in real time. And by your logic, if the game I deliever is a space sim of marginal or less quality, missing the very thing I marketed it to you on, then I delivered in making a game, thus I deserve to be funded on space sim 2.0. The simple truth is, I don't deserve it, and I should be shunned from the gaming community/buisness for my half-assed attempt.
This is what I expect to see if it ever gets funded. Fans are gonna find what they had been promised are not delievered...
I have decided to fund this game. I may not play it, but I believe it has great potential. I am not a big PvP player, but RvR might interest me (absolutely hate games that allow ganking), Also, as noted it contains PvE. The players that played DAoC are passionate about the game and that speaks loads for a game that has been around that long. I hope this makes it's goal and that many more jump on the bandwagon.
Originally posted by ShakyMo Well unlike swtor and rift it definetly won't be Yet Another Wow Clone.
Absolutely no chance of anything wowish about it.
So change the world - no Definetly offer something different, much like eve does - yes
Mark said awhile back that if CU does even half as well as EVE has done he'll be happy.
People need to think of CU as fantasy EVE with more Vikings
I certainly *hope* that ends up being an accurate description. EVE really has accomplished something great, though. Too early to tell if it it's going to happen here. If it does I'll be pumped. The concepts thus far really are leaning towards that direction, though.
Which is one of the reasons I'm so excited for it. I feel as though I sort of missed the boat when it came to EVE so I jumped on the chance to be in a similar type game from the beginning.
Plus, I've really been looking for an MMO with solid PvP/RvR structure, not something that is just tacked on to the traditional PvE experience.
Originally posted by Mkilbride Lol, I knew if I posted this article, MMORPG would come in to ruin what is an awesome piece by OnRPG.
What's really funny is that if a similarly melodramatic and extremely biased articel was posted about (oh let's choose a game at random) Wildstar .tThen the majority of people who think the opinion piece you presented us is awesome and the God's honest truth would be calling out the Wildstar article as biased and overly dramatic and villifying the author.
Quoting this because It's a crime no one's acknowledged this post yet.
And in regards to the article:
Just the title alone is such a sensationalist load of garbage I find it really hard to care about anything else he's saying.
I'm not sure what about that post is a legitimate point?
Are you saying that there actually were some CU fans that went to the Wildstar forums to bash an article about Wildstar? Do you have a link?
And then furthermore are you saying that the appropriate mature response would be to respond in kind to such behavior?
What? How? I don't....
How did you even get any of that?
All it means is a lot of people defending this article would turn right around and bash any other sensational article if it was a different game.
Sensationalist titles and insane claims are not how you convince outsiders to join your fandom.
In that case I dont understand what you are basing this opinion on?
What evidence do you have that people here would go out of their way to bash on another game?
Other forums seem mostly clear of the blind hatred being directed towards CU. If a sensationalist article was posted about another game... nobody would care except the fans of that game.
Its just here on the CU forums that the forum warriors have declared it their duty to personally bash and verbally attack every overly excited fan.
Your still not getting it even though Midboss expalained it quite well...
It's not about people going out of their way to bash other other games.I'm not even sure where you evne got that bee in your bonnet.Though if you haven't seen people blind hatred towards other games in these forums I ahve to wonder what kidn of filter you've been using to read these forums....every game gets hatred toward it in these forums especially closer to it's release.I guess KS ending is the catalyst here.
But none of that was the point at all.The point was melodramatic,sensationalist opinion pieces are jsut that no matter what the game it's about.Only peopel interpret them otherwise because such an article gels with their own bias.
CU not funding may be the end of the genre for the articles writer and a few CU fanbois but it will nowhere near be the end of the genre or have a far reaching effect on it.Now if it funds and byond all expectations becomes a runaway success or at the very least successful enough to make a decent niche proft...that amy have far reaching implications however that a big IF right now and for the foreseeable future.
I'd like it to be a niche success personally because I would liken it to the rise of Microbreweries around the world.They in no way comptete with the big boys but they make thier owners money and add local flavor to the industry.
EDIT : Sorry for the late response,fell ill soon after so haven't bene on for a couple days.
Originally posted by Mkilbride Lol, I knew if I posted this article, MMORPG would come in to ruin what is an awesome piece by OnRPG.
What's really funny is that if a similarly melodramatic and extremely biased articel was posted about (oh let's choose a game at random) Wildstar .tThen the majority of people who think the opinion piece you presented us is awesome and the God's honest truth would be calling out the Wildstar article as biased and overly dramatic and villifying the author.
Quoting this because It's a crime no one's acknowledged this post yet.
And in regards to the article:
Just the title alone is such a sensationalist load of garbage I find it really hard to care about anything else he's saying.
I'm not sure what about that post is a legitimate point?
Are you saying that there actually were some CU fans that went to the Wildstar forums to bash an article about Wildstar? Do you have a link?
And then furthermore are you saying that the appropriate mature response would be to respond in kind to such behavior?
What? How? I don't....
How did you even get any of that?
All it means is a lot of people defending this article would turn right around and bash any other sensational article if it was a different game.
Sensationalist titles and insane claims are not how you convince outsiders to join your fandom.
In that case I dont understand what you are basing this opinion on?
What evidence do you have that people here would go out of their way to bash on another game?
Other forums seem mostly clear of the blind hatred being directed towards CU. If a sensationalist article was posted about another game... nobody would care except the fans of that game.
Its just here on the CU forums that the forum warriors have declared it their duty to personally bash and verbally attack every overly excited fan.
Your still not getting it even though Midboss expalained it quite well...
It's not about people going out of their way to bash other other games.I'm not even sure where you evne got that bee in your bonnet.Though if you haven't seen people blind hatred towards other games in these forums I ahve to wonder what kidn of filter you've been using to read these forums....every game gets hatred toward it in these forums especially closer to it's release.I guess KS ending is the catalyst here.
But none of that was the point at all.The point was melodramatic,sensationalist opinion pieces are jsut that no matter what the game it's about.Only peopel interpret them otherwise because such an article gels with their own bias.
CU not funding may be the end of the genre for the articles writer and a few CU fanbois but it will nowhere near be the end of the genre or have a far reaching effect on it.Now if it funds and byond all expectations becomes a runaway success or at the very least successful enough to make a decent niche proft...that amy have far reaching implications however that a big IF right now and for the foreseeable future.
I'd like it to be a niche success personally because I would liken it to the rise of Microbreweries around the world.They in no way comptete with the big boys but they make thier owners money and add local flavor to the industry.
EDIT : Sorry for the late response,fell ill soon after so haven't bene on for a couple days.
Certainly excited people tend to exaggerate things, and even the evening news sensationalizes things to get publicity. I'd agree entirely that its perfectly reasonable to point it out when you feel something is being over-exaggerated.
However I'm getting extremely tired of the implications by a number of people on these forums that anyone who funds the project is stupid, childish, or mentally deficient. Tired of people claiming that kickstarter is an outright scam so they can act superior for "not falling for it". Definitely tired of people complaining that CU backers shouldnt even be allowed to post a new thread for an article about CU.
Reasonable posters should stand together against trolls and point out when either side of a discussion has crossed a line. But so far I've only seen a small handful of non-CU backers actually do that (thanks to them). Instead even many moderate posters here have been passively supporting the most absurdly hateful comments by acting as though CU backers are the immature ones whenever the community lashes back to defend the project that many are so passionate about.
Reasonable posters should stand together against trolls and point out when either side of a discussion has crossed a line. But so far I've only seen a small handful of non-CU backers actually do that (thanks to them). Instead even many moderate posters here have been passively supporting the most absurdly hateful comments by acting as though CU backers are the immature ones whenever the community lashes back to defend the project that many are so passionate about.
It goes both ways though. The first few pages of this thread should be full of CU supporters calling the article out for being sensational trash, the article and OP are seriously no different than some of the blind hating. Its just as ridiculous.
You are right there, there are an awful lot of uninformed crap posts out there. But there is also a lot of sensationalized garbage like this the other way.
I dont personally believe in kickstarter for a project like this, but ive always said that this is as safe of a pledge as you can get on kickstarter: Jacobs will legitmately try and make the game and I would fully expect it to release. i have a ton of skepticism about the project elsewhere, but it will fund and it will get released. Of that i am sure.
Comments
Mark said awhile back that if CU does even half as well as EVE has done he'll be happy.
People need to think of CU as fantasy EVE with more Vikings
Waiting: CU, WildStar, Destiny, Eternal Crusade
Playing: ESO,DCUO
Played: LotRO,RIFT,ToR,Warhammer, Runescape
Better yet,why wouldn't the hundreds of investors out there that would lol at this small amount,not invest in it?
I'll tell you why,you need something to show them,a concept done on a small scale.IMO he has nothing but a couple vids that would have taken one guy a day to setup,not much effort there and they prove nothing to an investor.
Look how much money NCSOFT tossed at Lord British,millions,they offerred him a guaranteed 20 million dollar job,his brother a high tier job.Know why,because he had something to show them.
I think people are confusing the term "NICHE" with low budget game design,they are not the same thing.A niche game would be like FFXI or Eve ,this is nothing more than talk,which we all know is cheap,presidents give speeches all the time about how wonderful they will make your lives.
If he wants to make this game happen and have support,tell him to offer up SHARES.That way you know it is legit and he is serious about player support,otherwise it looks like free handouts to a wealthy guy.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I agree. And in those cases they have previous products of the developer's talent/skill as evidence that the project/kickstarter is worth funding. In the case of Camelot Unchained the previous product of the lead on the project was so bad that it's now a standard by which to teach aspiring mmo developers what to never ever do. Hence why I have no faith whatsoever in this project, despite the fact that I love the core concept of this proposed game.
This isn't a matter of me disliking the proposed game. It's a matter of the wrong person being behind that game. It's like having a brilliant game concept being proposed by EA games, the end result won't even be a pale shadow of what could have been.
To find an intelligent person in a PUG is not that rare, but to find a PUG made up of "all" intelligent people is one of the rarest phenomenons in the known universe.
I certainly *hope* that ends up being an accurate description. EVE really has accomplished something great, though. Too early to tell if it it's going to happen here. If it does I'll be pumped. The concepts thus far really are leaning towards that direction, though.
Can he make a functioning game? Yes, most likely. The question is... can he make a "good" game.
My issues with Warhammer Online are in no way irrational, to say so is irrational in and of itself. The game tanked, hard. The concept of the game as it was proposed and in fact marketed, was not the final product. Now you can pass the blame to EA or any other number of things, but the fact it, mark said he was making game A, and instead we got a watered down, and unfinished game B.
I can claim to you I'm going to make the greatest space sim man has ever seen, with ships made of real sized destructable atoms, all run in real time. And by your logic, if the game I deliever is a space sim of marginal or less quality, missing the very thing I marketed it to you on, then I delivered in making a game, thus I deserve to be funded on space sim 2.0. The simple truth is, I don't deserve it, and I should be shunned from the gaming community/buisness for my half-assed attempt.
To find an intelligent person in a PUG is not that rare, but to find a PUG made up of "all" intelligent people is one of the rarest phenomenons in the known universe.
Describing WAR as:
Is irrational. Yes, irrational is the correct word to use in that context. There are certainly a few very good reasons to dislike WAR, there are plenty of issues with it. However you are making an emotional argument, not a logical one.
When Mythic acquired the Warhammer IP rights and started working on the concept of WAR (game A), the studio was largely controlled by MJ. About a year later the studio was bought out by EA (link). With them controlling the company the game was never going to be anything other than an attempt to cash in on the WoW 2.0 craze. You have to cut out and simplify all sorts of ideas when youre target audience suddenly becomes every breathing human being with access to a credit card.
That is what happens when big money buys into a bubble. Innovation is risky, copying something thats profitable sounds safer to them. Its no more rational to lay all the blame on MJ for WAR than it would be to blame the dev team over at Bioware that created Dragon Age for that horrific sequel of an "rpg" that EA pushed out, or (substitute here any of the other popular concepts EA has bought up without understanding what made them popular in the first place). This isnt a one time thing, its a trend. Its basically EA's business model (outside of rereleasing Madden every year of course).
When you are an officer of a large publicly traded corporation you have legal obligations. You can lose a lot more than your job if you go on camera and start telling fans that your new game isnt finished but the company is pushing it out anyway.
So what your saying is, is that the reason why WAR was rubbish, wasnt because of the developers, but because EA made them do it.. come to think of it, as daft as that sounds, its kind of believable
From what I read, Mythic ran out of money making Warhammer and needed EA to step in and help fund the remaining development. If EA treated Mythic the same as EA treated Bioware, which i'm sure they did seeing as how publishers do not really interfere in the 'creative process' of making a game, Mythic, and Mark Jacobs dug their own grave, or as Greg Zeschuk put it 'gives you enough rope to hang yourself'.
As much as I would love to see another PvP MMO out on the market, I think all of the concerns about Mark Jacobs running a company are real and cannot be pushed aside by excuses about EA's involvement.
This is what I expect to see if it ever gets funded. Fans are gonna find what they had been promised are not delievered...
It is funny how many MMOs have failed and had to shut down their servers, and close their doors in the last 10 years.
Yet DAoC and War are both still running and making a profit via subscriptions, otherwise they wouldn't still be running, obviously.
Just saying, facts is facts.
http://www.twitter.com/PoIs0nMaN
http://www.facebook.com/PoIs0nMaN
http://www.youtube.com/PoIs0nMaN
http://steamcommunity.com/id/PoIsOnMaN
http://poisonman.wordpress.com/
Which is one of the reasons I'm so excited for it. I feel as though I sort of missed the boat when it came to EVE so I jumped on the chance to be in a similar type game from the beginning.
Plus, I've really been looking for an MMO with solid PvP/RvR structure, not something that is just tacked on to the traditional PvE experience.
Waiting: CU, WildStar, Destiny, Eternal Crusade
Playing: ESO,DCUO
Played: LotRO,RIFT,ToR,Warhammer, Runescape
Your still not getting it even though Midboss expalained it quite well...
It's not about people going out of their way to bash other other games.I'm not even sure where you evne got that bee in your bonnet.Though if you haven't seen people blind hatred towards other games in these forums I ahve to wonder what kidn of filter you've been using to read these forums....every game gets hatred toward it in these forums especially closer to it's release.I guess KS ending is the catalyst here.
But none of that was the point at all.The point was melodramatic,sensationalist opinion pieces are jsut that no matter what the game it's about.Only peopel interpret them otherwise because such an article gels with their own bias.
CU not funding may be the end of the genre for the articles writer and a few CU fanbois but it will nowhere near be the end of the genre or have a far reaching effect on it.Now if it funds and byond all expectations becomes a runaway success or at the very least successful enough to make a decent niche proft...that amy have far reaching implications however that a big IF right now and for the foreseeable future.
I'd like it to be a niche success personally because I would liken it to the rise of Microbreweries around the world.They in no way comptete with the big boys but they make thier owners money and add local flavor to the industry.
EDIT : Sorry for the late response,fell ill soon after so haven't bene on for a couple days.
Certainly excited people tend to exaggerate things, and even the evening news sensationalizes things to get publicity. I'd agree entirely that its perfectly reasonable to point it out when you feel something is being over-exaggerated.
However I'm getting extremely tired of the implications by a number of people on these forums that anyone who funds the project is stupid, childish, or mentally deficient. Tired of people claiming that kickstarter is an outright scam so they can act superior for "not falling for it". Definitely tired of people complaining that CU backers shouldnt even be allowed to post a new thread for an article about CU.
Reasonable posters should stand together against trolls and point out when either side of a discussion has crossed a line. But so far I've only seen a small handful of non-CU backers actually do that (thanks to them). Instead even many moderate posters here have been passively supporting the most absurdly hateful comments by acting as though CU backers are the immature ones whenever the community lashes back to defend the project that many are so passionate about.
It goes both ways though. The first few pages of this thread should be full of CU supporters calling the article out for being sensational trash, the article and OP are seriously no different than some of the blind hating. Its just as ridiculous.
You are right there, there are an awful lot of uninformed crap posts out there. But there is also a lot of sensationalized garbage like this the other way.
I dont personally believe in kickstarter for a project like this, but ive always said that this is as safe of a pledge as you can get on kickstarter: Jacobs will legitmately try and make the game and I would fully expect it to release. i have a ton of skepticism about the project elsewhere, but it will fund and it will get released. Of that i am sure.