Hot Heart

Unfortunately, for an amateur critic like them, there is no real solution. Unless you're in a position where you're getting games sent to you, you'll always be behind the curve. As far as spoilers go, it's usually fairly easy to avoid them. You just visit places that decent gamers and/or writers reside i.e. not comment sections. Though I don't think you can completely avoid it, unfortunately. Recently, someone (not from here) tweeted what might seem like an innocuous comment about TLoU, but it only fuelled my theory about something that proved to be right. The same goes for the general reaction to the end of Telltale's TWD, even though being completely vague with that one is more than enough. If it's with regards to actual criticism and feeling out of the loop when it comes to discussion, I think that's something that needs to change, or will evolve as time goes by and it becomes a more 'legitimate' medium. Hundreds of films come and go, but the real classics are revered as such because they stand the test of time. I mean, take the most obvious: Citizen Kane. The film came out in 1941, but it wasn't really viewed as important until 1950 at the earliest and was reevaluated in the coming years (which is why it's even more ridiculous to declare something 'The Citizen Kane of gaming' in a review). If games are really culturally significant and worthy of such discussion, time will tell on that front.

Had a weird one last night/this morning. I can't remember exactly where I was or anything (I'm assuming it was a bar because I was sat down) but I'd just split up with a girlfriend (I think it was Anna Chlumsky because I just rewatched In The Loop the other day) and then this really beautiful blonde woman sits next to me and asks who I am. For some reason, rather than answer normally, I pull my business card from my pocket and hand it to her. She takes one look and declares, "We're getting married." To which I answer, "OK..." Can't recall much directly after that except we go shopping for a bit and we seem to get along really well, even though the whole time I'm thinking, "But she's way too attractive for me..." My brain reassures me that looks aren't everything (clearly, business cards are). Then there's a load of wedding preparations going on and I'm, like, "This has to be a great wedding!" So, naturally, I have to write a song. The rest of the dream is then me trying to find a quiet place to sit down with a guitar and write this song, except I'm in some multi-storey house and people (her relatives, I think) keep following me around. I go out to a friend's house in the country and there I'm agonising over a 7th chord and whether to play the following chord normal or arpeggio when I realise that I haven't done any of the lyrics either. So then I'm trying to find the words that encapsulate our relationship...which is obviously a very tricky task. I begin with "There once was a man..." and then my brain says, "No, this is a limerick, you idiot" and I wake up...

Darksiders. I know everyone's been going on about Darksiders II, but I figured I should play the first one. I don't really need a new game at the moment, but it was only £4 and, since most games I've played recently have been about shooting and/or sneaking, I wanted something with puzzley stuff and good old smacking-people-in-the-face (and TMNT: Out of the Shadows isn't out until the end of August).

Oh, I played Alhambra yesterday. It was alright, I suppose. All the other guys had a better handle on how to play it so knew how to setup their town and such. I did introduce the rule that you have to slam your fist on the table and cry, "Alhambra!" to signal the end of your turn and I managed not to come last, just narrowly beating the other new player.

Yeah, that's the one. By main credits, I meant the actor ones. We left after that.

Oh, yeah, I forgot to add something no one else mentioned: stick around until after the main credits.

David Mitchell: Back Story (autobiography) He is an awesome dude and it was only £2 on Kindle.

Pacific Rim. I went in with lowered expectations, or at least, simpler expectations and really enjoyed it. Its concept is B-movie but it doesn't really do anything 'less' than your average blockbuster. All told, it actually has a decent if largely predictable story and some good character moments (except for the clunkers that seem deliberately B-movie). The action is pretty outstanding, and I think seeing it in 3D may have helped with being able to tell what was going on at certain moments (the only time I will advocate 3D). Though, I think it may be more down to the fact that Del Toro just knows how to direct action with more clarity than Michael 'Camera-Fucking' Bay. That said, a couple of sequences rely on withholding certain 'surprises', which would be fine if they didn't go against basic logic, and while I like Idris Elba, I think some of his line delivery was just kinda...crap, even for a B-movie aesthetic.

Really? But that's pretty much the state of most Hollywood films. In that middle ground of not great but not exactly terrible.

Fuck the light, he ain't so fast.

If they hadn't started the game at all, you would've heard people complaining at the very start. I believe the idea was to show a game completely from scratch (and obviously not all games are made the same, it was more a 'Double Fine documentary'). From what I can tell, the documentary was planned as $100k of the original $400k (not sure how much it's grown in relation to the finished budget). There's an interview that sheds a little more light, as to how the game was originally a bare minimum deal (and definitely not on par with Day of the Tentacle when it was at $300k). And I'm not sure your solution would work because then you're already conflating funding with pre-orders. As has been said, it's a tricky situation.

Evil prank Idiotic news station

I dunno. With investors you're kinda going, "These are the expected returns, etc." without really focusing on how the finished product will play, whereas with backers you are going "This is the sort of game I want to make." As has been mentioned, though, the lines are a little blurred.

Pre-production was taking place in that six months (so I guess longer than expected). Just illustrating how folks were already expecting a larger game, rather than DF pocketing the extra money, but never spoke up then. And I'm talking from the point-of-view of the developer since it is a very direct relationship. They need to treat backers as customers since a lot of it is down to reputation/goodwill as well, especially if they want them to buy their games or back other projects. Though, as I've been trying to establish, DFA is a rare exception in that there was no design document or at least a very loose one (and 1/4 of the funds intended to be allocated to the documentary). If people are concerned about how this might affect other game projects, I think that's an important distinction to make and emphasise. And I think it's acceptable that they've found alternative means of revenue without asking backers to cough up more or going to a publisher. As long as it is now what they say they will deliver, I think it will be OK. Being further along, I figure it must be easier to estimate. Going back to publisher-funded games, we don't see all the things that get cut. We may hear about some of them through artbooks and stuff, but we can't put a cost (or how much money was 'wasted') to that either. Journey's team of 18 took three years instead of one, and bankrupt Thatgamecompany in the process. Do we know if the game was going to be much larger than the few hours it takes to complete? How much can we tell is 'onscreen'? If Broken Age still has voice-acting and music (no mention of those being cut) and other such improvements, it will still appear to be of a higher production value than originally pitched and certainly one over on other smaller games they've done, like Costume Quest and Stacked. And, besides, at this point I really think we've made slightly too big a deal of it.

This didn't come out of the blue. Updates for backers show precisely what stage it's at; I don't expect a documentary to give me a financial report. And for those checking the updates, they'll know that actual production didn't begin until September 2012. In fact, it was around March 2013 that Schafer said was a 'good sounding time' for the game's release. Yes, they're now way off, but it establishes that people were always expecting more for no extra cost. And it was February 2013 when people saw the design vs. money tension and rescoping come up. At that point, it had become clear to Double Fine that things would go beyond reasonable expectations, thus rescope and seek alternative funding. If your customers are your backers, then you're trying to gauge and balance these expectations. If we're going to talk about a 'right to complain', then I'm getting a game that will be worth more than the originally envisioned $400k (and it's with modest cuts, not the 75% mentioned earlier) without having to pay any extra, and I have no qualms with that timeframe.

"Your Privacy is Our Priority." I'll bet it is...

Retweeted this a while back but I guess some people don't follow me on Twitter (wise decision).

And in a single paragraph, Ethan goes and summarises exactly what I was trying to say...

Dean, I'm not saying that entertainment producers don't use any of their profits. I'm saying that they don't fund it entirely on their own like independents (who even strike up deals themselves when it comes to films). Game developers go to publishers (alternatively, Kickstarter) for funding, film studios strike up advertisement deals, etc. It offsets production costs upfront and reduces the risk of the creative endeavour. I really didn't think this needed clarifying. For all intents and purposes, Kickstarter is akin to drawing up a deal with a publisher, only that the boundaries are not so defined nor is there the same level of binding contracts. Backers' actual expectations and satisfaction mean a hell of a lot more than what they have a 'right' to feel. I don't doubt that there were some upset backers nine months ago, but I never heard of any significant negative outcry like now. The Kickstarter page explains Double Fine's view on the project, which would've given backers an idea of what to expect (and probably why most were fine with the increased scope) It was never Schafer's intention to go over budget. He just wanted to make the best game possible and show it being done. Backers have even contributed art ideas and voted on other things. As a backer, I don't support them going over-budget, obviously, but I can now see why it happened. Yes, I have every right to be upset, but since I've not been asked for extra money and Double Fine have found a creative solution, I'm happy to see what happens. I'm using the first-person shooter example to show how more risk-averse publishers are. The old standard of market research is why bigger games have become so homogenised. With general market research, they're looking to find the big thing at the moment and capitalise on that. It's generally accepted that indie games, where developers are not so shackled, are where the riskier, more creative ideas are. I said that smaller decisions can create a larger impact which makes it hard to predict a cost. If the game gets bigger, the script/story changes, they have more music, design new areas and add new characters. This requires re-writing, concept artwork, voice-acting, extra documentary episodes, etc. The artbook and soundtrack then require rethinking as to what gets included, etc. None of this happens by magic. The translation one, as I stated, is relatively minorOnce again, I'm not saying they should've expanded the way they did (i.e. gone over-budget) but I can see where things become difficult to predict. Maybe that is an example of exponential costs, but I was only bringing it up as an example of the complexity involved with making a game from scratch compared to FTL which was already locked-in as a design. And Double Fine haven't technically gone over budget. As with all games, even by developers with publishers, they've had to rein in the scope to bring it back in line with the budget. Crowd-funded games undergo the same issues as publisher-funded, only this time it's out in the open and the risk is on the backers. If people thought this was a pre-order service, that's their own misconception and a lesson-learned. Until such time as Double Fine plonk out a game that looks less than $400k's worth, I shall reserve judgement. And please, stop with these pointless analogies. They're what's confusing the discussion. A watch is not the same as a game. And, once again, the design was already locked-in (having secured outside investment already as well). They weren't making something from scratch and showing the backers how it's all done.

Blog about the political aspects of The Witcher.

You could've replayed that chapter. I would've considered that fair play.

I guess I need to clarify some things. I am arguing that increasing the scope of the project is perfectly fine (and was perfectly fine with all the backers). However, going over that is a stupid mistake, I agree. Market research is what gets you First-Person Army Man Shooter #42. Obviously, I'm not saying it's exactly the same thing, but Kickstarter is still about testing the water and getting a feel for how far you can take a project. Double Fine Adventure was looking to have this extra bit of creative freedom, but at the caveat of the risk being on the backers. Schafer says he always designs too much game, so I imagine this is either common practice or at least common to DF, so they have found ways to cope in the past. The difference is now you can see it. Still, they found an alternative way to fund the rest, adamant that they wouldn't ask for more money from backers (which would be akin to asking a publisher for extra funding) while only making moderate cuts to the game. When I'm talking about funding, Dean, I am pointing out the industry norms for entertainment products. If everything were made directly off of a creator's profits there wouldn't be adverts, product placement, etc. Spielberg has made billions of dollars but he doesn't dip into his own pocket every time he wants to make a film. That is essentially my point. Just because a developer makes some money from a game, they don't suddenly go indie and fund it using only their profits. With Kickstarter, backers are replacing publishers. Thing is, it's new territory, so the expectations and complications are still a little fluid. And I wasn't saying that extra languages, porting, etc. uses up another $2.9m. It was an attempt to demonstrate how a relatively small design decision can have a larger impact down the line, thus making it trickier to predict the final budget required. I'm arguing the fact that it's a more complicated thing to create and predict when compared to something like FTL. And when I'm talking about exponential costs, I'm referring to the physical side of things (i.e. economies of scale). I imagine the 15% figure comes from actually having spoken to someone inside the studio. The 75% cutting down comment appears to be based on projections as to continuing full steam until July 2015 without increasing costs. It always seemed a little weird for me, but I really don't think they were expecting to make up to an extra $2.5m from Steam Early Access. Whether not anyone has room to complain if DF released a $400k game doesn't make a jot of difference. People would complain, whether they paid the minimum $15 or not. Everyone was already expecting a much larger game before the KS funding period even ended because DF had already set out those expectations. There was no uproar 9 months ago, when nothing materialised, precisely because everyone was waiting for a larger game. Everyone was perfectly happy for Double Fine to put more into it, beyond what they might've expected to get for their money. Besides, as already mentioned, those who 'have been following along in the documentary know about the design vs. money tension [they've] had on this project since the early days'. The big issue now is that it has overstepped what people reasonably expected it to cost and the amount of time to deliver with cuts then reducing the finished product. Additionally, there's the usual case of everyone parroting what a media source has told them in the usual manufactured outrage (even I was swayed a little until I bothered to look into the documentary and listen to other perspectives). Not saying that's the case with you here, but it seems to be the general attitude. Regardless, I can see the frustration, and I absolutely agree with the idea that they should've set a more reasonable 'buffer'. However, I will never be of the mindset that Double Fine expanding the scope in the first place was the wrong thing to do or that everyone would've been so accepting had they not.

So awesome.

The dream one was deliberate. Always reaches the same end point, anyway. Be careful though, there are instances for all the main characters where they can die (though they usually give you a few chances to 'correct' things) which really changes the endings.