25th June 2015, 6:18 AM
In other news, it seems that Shenmue 3's kickstarter has kinda... stalled out.
http://www.dualshockers.com/2015/06/22/t...ather-sad/
It seems there's a rather strong push to say that this kickstarter is somehow "wrong". The first argument is they didn't reveal their connection to Sony "immediately" enough. Now, I knew pretty much from the start Sony was likely funding the lion's share of the costs, simply because Sony PUT this guy on stage to make this announcement. They weren't just doing it out of generosity. However, how is this any different than Bloodstained? I had noted how weird the notion of "kickstarting" a game other developers were putting up the funds for when that involvement wasn't entirely clear, but that involvement is clear as it's going to get now. Further, Bloodstained is talking about shadowy rather unknown groups of investors, but Shenmue 3 is referencing one very big name and thus very reliable investor. I'd say Shenmue 3 looks better for it.
The next argument is that they are being too "vague" in their promises. I'm not sure I get that. Every kickstarter I've ever seen that is for a game so early in design is just as vague, except maybe Mighty No. 9. Torment, for example, only made promises in vagueries like "it'll be like Planescape" and "has good writing" and "will be choice driven". It's becoming more crystallized at this stage, but people donating to that game didn't even know if it was going to be turned based or real time (a decision which eventually caused a lot of drama on the development forums).
Having pointed that out, the last argument is "I'm not talking about OTHER kickstarters, I'm talking about THIS one, I don't care what the others did!". I mean, how do you address where expectations should be without knowing the general way things are typically done? I can understand if you don't think ANY of these kickstarters should be so vague, but then WHY are you harping on THIS one alone instead of kickstarter culture as a whole? It just seems like when things like this happen, the hatred takes on a mind of it's own and won't stop until it achieves it's goal. The sad truth is, the internet is becoming a good tool for destroying lives. Heck, when someone made a racist comment on a plane, people got upset. That's fine. Use it as an example of a systemic problem. However, what they ACTUALLY did was make that ONE person a target of destruction instead of just an example of wider issues. She got fired by the time her plane landed. Was that REALLY necessary? Did that one racist comment really need to be taken to THAT extreme?
As a side note, I used to not want to share my real world identity because of fears I'd get my identity stolen, or mere privacy concerns. Now I don't want to share it because I've said some stupid and ignorant things in the past and I don't really feel like having my boring real world life scrutinized like I'm some sort of celebrity for however long it takes to destroy it so that the righteous can "win".
http://www.dualshockers.com/2015/06/22/t...ather-sad/
It seems there's a rather strong push to say that this kickstarter is somehow "wrong". The first argument is they didn't reveal their connection to Sony "immediately" enough. Now, I knew pretty much from the start Sony was likely funding the lion's share of the costs, simply because Sony PUT this guy on stage to make this announcement. They weren't just doing it out of generosity. However, how is this any different than Bloodstained? I had noted how weird the notion of "kickstarting" a game other developers were putting up the funds for when that involvement wasn't entirely clear, but that involvement is clear as it's going to get now. Further, Bloodstained is talking about shadowy rather unknown groups of investors, but Shenmue 3 is referencing one very big name and thus very reliable investor. I'd say Shenmue 3 looks better for it.
The next argument is that they are being too "vague" in their promises. I'm not sure I get that. Every kickstarter I've ever seen that is for a game so early in design is just as vague, except maybe Mighty No. 9. Torment, for example, only made promises in vagueries like "it'll be like Planescape" and "has good writing" and "will be choice driven". It's becoming more crystallized at this stage, but people donating to that game didn't even know if it was going to be turned based or real time (a decision which eventually caused a lot of drama on the development forums).
Having pointed that out, the last argument is "I'm not talking about OTHER kickstarters, I'm talking about THIS one, I don't care what the others did!". I mean, how do you address where expectations should be without knowing the general way things are typically done? I can understand if you don't think ANY of these kickstarters should be so vague, but then WHY are you harping on THIS one alone instead of kickstarter culture as a whole? It just seems like when things like this happen, the hatred takes on a mind of it's own and won't stop until it achieves it's goal. The sad truth is, the internet is becoming a good tool for destroying lives. Heck, when someone made a racist comment on a plane, people got upset. That's fine. Use it as an example of a systemic problem. However, what they ACTUALLY did was make that ONE person a target of destruction instead of just an example of wider issues. She got fired by the time her plane landed. Was that REALLY necessary? Did that one racist comment really need to be taken to THAT extreme?
As a side note, I used to not want to share my real world identity because of fears I'd get my identity stolen, or mere privacy concerns. Now I don't want to share it because I've said some stupid and ignorant things in the past and I don't really feel like having my boring real world life scrutinized like I'm some sort of celebrity for however long it takes to destroy it so that the righteous can "win".
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)