1774 réponses à ce sujet

[Cimeas]

People are hugely overestimating what this game will be.


A product like Dragon Age or Mass Effect costs about $30-$40 million. And that's NOT INCLUDING marketing, so don't bring that up. With 1/30th of that money, they won't be able to afford a good soundtrack, voice acting, custscenes, area choices, decent graphics, good animations etc...

It seems likely they'll get 2 or 3 million dollars, then. Well for an RPG, that's nothing. What gamers, even hardcore old-school gamers, expect nowadays, is WAY beyond what they can deliver on that budget.

Their last RPG, Alpha Protocol, was considered low-budget, graphically bad, and had pretty average gameplay, bad animations, and often badly designed cutscenes. It probably had a budget of AT LEAST $10-$15 million.

Even the old school games, like Baldur's Gate 2 probably had higher budgets than that, especially if they were adjusted for inflation between the 90s and today.

[Chromie]

Cimeas wrote...

People are hugely overestimating what this game will be.


A product like Dragon Age or Mass Effect costs about $30-$40 million. And that's NOT INCLUDING marketing, so don't bring that up. With 1/30th of that money, they won't be able to afford a good soundtrack, voice acting, custscenes, area choices, decent graphics, good animations etc....

They WON'T be voicing every single line like in a Bioware game that really drives up the cost of games. They won't be spending money on marketing (I assume) which is also expensive. Graphics will probably just be standard I expect to see a great artstyle with decent graphics nothing mind blowing it's the gameplay and writing I'm excited for. 
Baldur's Gate 2 budget was 4.5 million and Fallout 1 (I think) was 3 milion) so I do expect them to create something amazing.

Modifié par Skelter192, 15 septembre 2012 - 12:07 .

[argan1985]

Cimeas wrote...

People are hugely overestimating what this game will be.


A product like Dragon Age or Mass Effect costs about $30-$40 million. And that's NOT INCLUDING marketing, so don't bring that up. With 1/30th of that money, they won't be able to afford a good soundtrack, voice acting, custscenes, area choices, decent graphics, good animations etc...

It seems likely they'll get 2 or 3 million dollars, then. Well for an RPG, that's nothing. What gamers, even hardcore old-school gamers, expect nowadays, is WAY beyond what they can deliver on that budget.

Their last RPG, Alpha Protocol, was considered low-budget, graphically bad, and had pretty average gameplay, bad animations, and often badly designed cutscenes. It probably had a budget of AT LEAST $10-$15 million.

Even the old school games, like Baldur's Gate 2 probably had higher budgets than that, especially if they were adjusted for inflation between the 90s and today.

Voice acting? Cut scenes? Good animations and graphics? That's not the point of this whole thing. The whole idea is to create an old-style 2D CRPG, which means very little voice-acting, no need to spend enormous amount of the budget on useless cutscenes or spectacular graphics and so on. 

I have high hopes for this.

[Catroi]

Cimeas wrote...

People are hugely overestimating what this game will be.


A product like Dragon Age or Mass Effect costs about $30-$40 million. And that's NOT INCLUDING marketing, so don't bring that up. With 1/30th of that money, they won't be able to afford a good soundtrack, voice acting, custscenes, area choices, decent graphics, good animations etc...

It seems likely they'll get 2 or 3 million dollars, then. Well for an RPG, that's nothing. What gamers, even hardcore old-school gamers, expect nowadays, is WAY beyond what they can deliver on that budget.

Their last RPG, Alpha Protocol, was considered low-budget, graphically bad, and had pretty average gameplay, bad animations, and often badly designed cutscenes. It probably had a budget of AT LEAST $10-$15 million.

Even the old school games, like Baldur's Gate 2 probably had higher budgets than that, especially if they were adjusted for inflation between the 90s and today.

- It's going to be on an infinity-like engine => nearly no cost
- My guess is that we won't see any Marketing budget for this game
- you do realise that Isometric view cost nearly nothing nowadays (animations and cinematics for example are really easy to make)

Baldur's Gate was 3.5 million, but at that time isometric view cost a lot more than nowadays AND there was a huge marketing campain for it

[Jozape]

Cimeas wrote...

People are hugely overestimating what this game will be.


A product like Dragon Age or Mass Effect costs about $30-$40 million. And that's NOT INCLUDING marketing, so don't bring that up. With 1/30th of that money, they won't be able to afford a good soundtrack, voice acting, custscenes, area choices, decent graphics, good animations etc...

It seems likely they'll get 2 or 3 million dollars, then. Well for an RPG, that's nothing. What gamers, even hardcore old-school gamers, expect nowadays, is WAY beyond what they can deliver on that budget.

Their last RPG, Alpha Protocol, was considered low-budget, graphically bad, and had pretty average gameplay, bad animations, and often badly designed cutscenes. It probably had a budget of AT LEAST $10-$15 million.

Even the old school games, like Baldur's Gate 2 probably had higher budgets than that, especially if they were adjusted for inflation between the 90s and today.

Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, and Planescape: Torment's budgets weren't that much bigger. And the tools are much better nowadays, making development easier.

Decent graphics, animation and sound is a subjective thing. I thought Planescape: Torment and Icewind Dale excelled in all three areas. True, we won't be getting tons of cut scenes, cinematics, and close ups of meticulously animated faces. I don't really think those things are valuable at all though, and I won't be missing them as a fan of this particular type of game.

As for area choices? I'm not entirely sure what that means, but regardless of whether you mean player character choice or different environments, you're wrong. They're actually more freed up to do those kinds of things, because of what you and I listed before. And there's no publisher breathing down their backs, telling them what they can and can't do. Even if we the fans disapprove of something, they can do it and prove us wrong.

[Cimeas]

Yes but why do we want a game that could be 10 years old. Surely people want them to advance in some way. Wasteland 2, for example is a huge leap from it's predecessor.

I can't believe that people literally want another game that could be made 10 years ago. Surely they want something similar, but BETTER.

[Chromie]

 

Wereparrot wrote...

Interesting, but no more than that. And why are they begging? Bethesda never begged for funding to make Skyrim, or at least not that I'm aware of.

Bethesda isn't an independent studio. Bethesda also makes games for a much larger audience. If you know anything about Obsidian's history with publishers it's that they get a lot of ****. Sega delayed Alpha Protocol by a year (was it 2?) Lucas Arts cut Kotor 2's dev time by 6-7 months which obviously hurt the game, Fallout: New Vegas QA was handled by Bethesda which hurt the game and caused them to not get their bonuses which led to some people being fired. 

Obsidian is a indenpent studio they don't have th resources of Bethesda. Obsidian will be creating a niche oldschool rpg game that most likely would sell 2 million copies in todays market not 10 million.

Cimeas wrote...

Yes but why do we want a game that could be 10 years old. Surely people want them to advance in some way. Wasteland 2, for example is a huge leap from it's predecessor. 

I can't believe that people literally want another game that could be made 10 years ago. Surely they want something similar, but BETTER.

 

What can you honestly say Wasteland 2 is doing differently? I assume graphics would be your jumping off point and if you look at Wasteland 2 it's not gorgeous it's fine but amazing I like the artstyle and animations which is more than enough if they can achieve even half of what's in their vision document.

Modifié par Skelter192, 15 septembre 2012 - 12:13 .

[Jozape]

Cimeas wrote...

Yes but why do we want a game that could be 10 years old. Surely people want them to advance in some way. Wasteland 2, for example is a huge leap from it's predecessor.

I can't believe that people literally want another game that could be made 10 years ago. Surely they want something similar, but BETTER.

Nice straw man argument. They are not trying to make a 10 year old game. They are trying to take what was great about the Infinity Engine games and bring it in a new package with updated GUI, AI, graphics, ruleset, what they've learned in quest design, etc.

It's funny that you don't consider Wasteland 2 a 10 year old style game. That's more like 20 years old. You play 4 characters you create yourself in a turn-based game. That is WAY older than Infinity Engine, and contrary to the BG and PS:T style(but not IcewindDale with the party creation, of course)

[Dragoonlordz]

Cimeas wrote...

Yes but why do we want a game that could be 10 years old. Surely people want them to advance in some way. Wasteland 2, for example is a huge leap from it's predecessor.

I can't believe that people literally want another game that could be made 10 years ago. Surely they want something similar, but BETTER.

Not sure what your trying to accomplish in this thread.  Clearly a lot of us want what they say wish to create thats why a lot of us have contributed and why it's at $900k in the first 24 hours since started. It fine if your not interested in what they said are making but I find it odd that your trying to convince others to change their mind.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 15 septembre 2012 - 12:14 .

[Jozape]

 The Project Eternity website is up now. Not much on it yet, though.

[dracuella]

I, for one, just want the feel of the old games. Gorgeous graphics and lots of talented voice actors are nice bonuses but I don't strictly speaking need them to enjoy a game. What's more important to me is the way you could get completely engulfed by the old RPG games, forgetting everything around you even food and sleep. Immersion and great storytelling is key!

[Korusus]

Cimeas wrote...

Yes but why do we want a game that could be 10 years old. Surely people want them to advance in some way. Wasteland 2, for example is a huge leap from it's predecessor.

I can't believe that people literally want another game that could be made 10 years ago. Surely they want something similar, but BETTER.

Sure, that's great to pretend.  Who exactly is going to develop that game?  Where is that 20 to 30 million going to come from?  The big publishers have completely locked out this kind of game ever being made.  BioWare has all but openly stated that they will never again develop a game anywhere close to this, Dragon Effect is here to stay.

If you want flashy, cinematic, fully-voiced, cutscene-fests -- that's what BioWare is for.

Project: Eternity is something different.  Not worse, different.  And it's about more than just a game.  It's about sticking it to the people in the industry (yes, including BioWare) that claim a game like Baldur's Gate 2 or Planescape: Torment could never be made successfully in this day and age.  Well, screw that I say. 

This is not Obsidian begging.  Obsidian IS Black Isle.  Obsidian IS this game.  This game is what Obsidian was meant to do.  They've just not been allowed to do it because of the decisions of a handful of CEOs that completely dominate this industry, companies like EA that throw money around to stifle competition and artistry in development.

What amazes me is that despite all the evidence that voice overs are the bane of the gaming industry, that it drives up costs exponentially and prevents developers from having free reign over their own product...despite that, some players still insist and demand that it be present in every game ever from now on till the end of time....WHAT?  No wonder BioWare will never have a return to its glory days, catering to that crowd.

Modifié par Korusus, 15 septembre 2012 - 01:03 .

[argan1985]

Korusus wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

Yes but why do we want a game that could be 10 years old. Surely people want them to advance in some way. Wasteland 2, for example is a huge leap from it's predecessor.

I can't believe that people literally want another game that could be made 10 years ago. Surely they want something similar, but BETTER.

Sure, that's great to pretend.  Who exactly is going to develop that game?  Where is that 20 to 30 million going to come from?  The big publishers have completely locked out this kind of game ever being made.  BioWare has all but openly stated that they will never again develop a game anywhere close to this, Dragon Effect is here to stay.

If you want flashy, cinematic, fully-voiced, cutscene-fests -- that's what BioWare is for.

Project: Eternity is something different.  Not worse, different.  And it's about more than just a game.  It's about sticking it to the people in the industry (yes, including BioWare) that claim a game like Baldur's Gate 2 or Planescape: Torment could never be made successfully in this day and age.  Well, screw them I say. 

This is not Obsidian begging.  Obsidian IS Black Isle.  Obsidian IS this game.  This game is what Obsidian was meant to do.  They've just not been allowed to do it because of the decisions of a handful of CEOs that completely dominate this industry, companies like EA that throw money around to stifle competition and artistry in development.

What amazes me is that despite all the evidence that voice overs are the bane of the gaming industry, that it drives up costs exponentially and prevents developers from having free reign over their own product...despite that, some players still insist and demand that it be present in every game ever from now on till the end of time....WHAT?  No wonder BioWare will never have a return to its glory days, catering to that crowd.

Great post.

[Nordicus]

Catroi wrote...

- It's going to be on an infinity-like engine => nearly no cost

I think Obsidian will be using the Onyx engine. They own it, they made Dungeon Siege 3 with it, so there's very little engine development cost.

[MerinTB]

dracuella wrote...
I, for one, just want the feel of the old games. Gorgeous graphics and lots of talented voice actors are nice bonuses but I don't strictly speaking need them to enjoy a game. What's more important to me is the way you could get completely engulfed by the old RPG games, forgetting everything around you even food and sleep. Immersion and great storytelling is key!

There's also a lot to be said for giving more "blank space" for the player to fill in stuff and make the game their own.

Most entertainment acknowledges that, on some level, letting the person experiencing the art - be it literature, film, music, a painting - use his or her imagination to shape the end results often leads to a more satisfying interaction.

In sequential storytelling (comic books), for example, there's the "gutter" (the white space between panels) which, as Scott McCloud argues, is the most important part of the page.  In a movie or tv show, there's the fade to black or, even better, what happens just off screen.

For a computer role-playing game, at least to me, the stuff that the game leaves for your head to fill in makes the game more fun than any level of voice-acting or enhanced graphic cut scenes ever could.  Think on it like this - have you ever experienced it where you read a book and the protagonist is not described in great detail and you get this picture in your mind of what the character looks like?  And then you see a later book jacket, or a comic book version of the novel, or worse yet a tv series or movie based on the work... and the character doesn't look (or sound) anything like what you imagined?

That, there, is  your imagination shaping the character to what you like and helping the story to be your own and more enjoyable to you.  You never experience this if, for example, you watch Harry Potter  and then read the novels... you already have an actor in mind as you read about the character.  You can still enjoy this, certainly, and this is a way to avoid much of the "the book was better" experience as much of that is the gulf of difference between your experience with how the book goes and the director (and actors) view of how the book goes.

Yet, sometimes, don't you read the book a movie is based on and find yourself STILL saying "the book was better"?  At least some of that is because, despite the movie, you still give yourself a different, more personalized version of the story than the director's version.

Long ramble aside - I think cinematics and voice acting in games can be enjoyable, but what I personally want out of a role-playing game is more of the novel experience than the movie one.  I want to own it more.

And this is a big part of what made older RPGs more fun for me than the modern, cinematic versions.

Project Eternity, for this as well as many other reasons, is exactly my kind of cRPG.

[twincast]

Cimeas wrote...

People are hugely overestimating what this game will be.

A product like Dragon Age or Mass Effect costs about $30-$40 million. And that's NOT INCLUDING marketing, so don't bring that up. With 1/30th of that money, they won't be able to afford a good soundtrack, voice acting, custscenes, area choices, decent graphics, good animations etc...

It seems likely they'll get 2 or 3 million dollars, then. Well for an RPG, that's nothing. What gamers, even hardcore old-school gamers, expect nowadays, is WAY beyond what they can deliver on that budget.

Their last RPG, Alpha Protocol, was considered low-budget, graphically bad, and had pretty average gameplay, bad animations, and often badly designed cutscenes. It probably had a budget of AT LEAST $10-$15 million.

Even the old school games, like Baldur's Gate 2 probably had higher budgets than that, especially if they were adjusted for inflation between the 90s and today.

Oh what the heck, I'm in a good mood, I'll bite.

• People are hugely overestimating what this game will be.

No, they are not. There's naturally disagreement in what particular mechanics of old should be emulated (which for the most part can be burned down to Fallout v. Baldur's Gate), but (next to) no unrealistic morons.

• A product like Dragon Age or Mass Effect costs about $30-$40 million. And that's NOT INCLUDING marketing, so don't bring that up. With 1/30th of that money, they won't be able to afford a good soundtrack, voice acting, custscenes, area choices, decent graphics, good animations etc...

1) So what? 2) There'll be no marketing to speak of. 3) Well, 1/30th is the base goal, 1/10th the likely minimum result. 4) Smaller games have had great soundtracks before. 5) There'll be only minimal voice-acting. And the (vast majority of) people who pledge don't want it any other way. 6) Same for cutscenes. 7) Beautiful isometric assets (2D or 3D) are now much faster and cheaper to produce than either full-blown 3D assets today or isometric assets back then. 8) Technically slightly below average graphics with lovingly crafted assets more than suffice; nobody expects a new Crysis to come out of this. 9) *facepalm* ... Different engine, but just take a look at the short Wasteland 2 video to debunk all your graphics myths.

• It seems likely they'll get 2 or 3 million dollars, then. Well for an RPG, that's nothing. What gamers, even hardcore old-school gamers, expect nowadays, is WAY beyond what they can deliver on that budget.

Compared to Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun Returns I expect at the very least 2 millions, most likely 3-4 millions and maybe even up to 6 millions. And no, it's not.

• Their last RPG, Alpha Protocol, was considered low-budget, graphically bad, and had pretty average gameplay, bad animations, and often badly designed cutscenes. It probably had a budget of AT LEAST $10-$15 million.

Among other faults in reasoning your strawman most importantly wasn't isometric.

• Even the old school games, like Baldur's Gate 2 probably had higher budgets than that, especially if they were adjusted for inflation between the 90s and today.

No, not really, not by much in any case. And as was already said, technology gets cheaper. Plus, no licensing fees.

Cimeas wrote...

Yes but why do we want a game that could be 10 years old. Surely people want them to advance in some way. Wasteland 2, for example is a huge leap from it's predecessor.

I can't believe that people literally want another game that could be made 10 years ago. Surely they want something similar, but BETTER.

Wasteland is also much, much older. I'd buy a Wasteland 2 with 10 year old graphics in a heartbeat.

A mechanically 10-15 (or in some select cases even 20-25) years old game with higher resolutions and reasonably updated graphics? Sign me up. No wait, I already did. A number of times.

And sure, better is, well, better, but more modern does not equal better. Barring the recent indie boom the last decade of gaming has generally seen nothing but decreases in diversity and quality in any regard but "cinematic presentation" and purty graphics and thanks to the focus on consoles the latter is even far, far behind what it could be by now.

Modifié par twincast, 15 septembre 2012 - 01:28 .

[RinuCZ]

A cost of voice over can be formidable in the case of extensive branched dialogues (e.g. PS:T, Albion) IMO. On the other hand if a company already owns VO technology and it has an effective leadership with a clear vision, I suppose it doesn't have to be impossible, at least for titles which don't have 150 hours of fully-voiced dialogues.

For example, it's still profitable for Czech television stations to add Czech dubbing for long-run series or movies even if audience is rather small. I know it's a different industry with a different development but a condition is similar. Voicing a large amount of script vs. subtitles.

If voice over is done right it's definitely a big plus (Mass Effect series wouldn't be certainly that much awesome without it) but I don't mind if KS projects lack dubbing.

Modifié par RinuCZ, 15 septembre 2012 - 01:45 .

[Fallstar]

Cimeas wrote...

People are hugely overestimating what this game will be.


A product like Dragon Age or Mass Effect costs about $30-$40 million. And that's NOT INCLUDING marketing, so don't bring that up. With 1/30th of that money, they won't be able to afford a good soundtrack, voice acting, custscenes, area choices, decent graphics, good animations etc...

It seems likely they'll get 2 or 3 million dollars, then. Well for an RPG, that's nothing. What gamers, even hardcore old-school gamers, expect nowadays, is WAY beyond what they can deliver on that budget.

Their last RPG, Alpha Protocol, was considered low-budget, graphically bad, and had pretty average gameplay, bad animations, and often badly designed cutscenes. It probably had a budget of AT LEAST $10-$15 million.

Even the old school games, like Baldur's Gate 2 probably had higher budgets than that, especially if they were adjusted for inflation between the 90s and today.

Games such as BG2 required fractions of the budget of modern cinematic, voice acted games. Of the order of $1-10 million dollars. And that's when those games were new. Now, those games can created for fractions of even the original low cost.

I'd guess Project Eternity will raise around the $4-5 million mark, which is more than enough money to produce a game of the kind the people backing it want.

[Joy Divison]

Cimeas wrote...

Yes but why do we want a game that could be 10 years old. Surely people want them to advance in some way. Wasteland 2, for example is a huge leap from it's predecessor.

I can't believe that people literally want another game that could be made 10 years ago. Surely they want something similar, but BETTER.

What WE want is obviously different from what YOU want.

Play your high budget DA2 with its numerous cut-scenes (which our PCs talk without our input), its useless marketing (www.youtube.com/watch), uninsipiring graphics (darkspawn!), and pisspoor combat (I've played CRPGs in the 1980s more exciting than the arishok duel).

Modifié par Joy Divison, 15 septembre 2012 - 02:48 .

[Cyberarmy]

Its $949k already!

[Chromie]

scyphozoa wrote...

About an hour until it will be 24 hours. I was hoping to see it funded within the first 24 hours, but I'm not really being too picky. It looks like it will clear its goal by the end of the day.

Same here it would be kind of amazing to see $1.1 million for a game reach funding before 24 hours.

[Jozape]

scyphozoa wrote...

To be fair, it looks like it will clear the 1 million mark before 24 hours. I wonder if that is a Kickstarter record?

DoubleFine did 1.1 million in the first 24 hours, I think.

[Dragoonlordz]

By the way coinciding with this kickstarter, GoG have got promotion on in case did not know.

http://www.gog.com/e..._stacking_promo

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 15 septembre 2012 - 03:07 .