Crowdsourced Hardcore Tactical Shooter

[BOTA:16 0]

Actually, PuFu has a very good point.

Everything stated there could be stated on a CoD box. All I have is his word. No concepts, no detailed Ideas how CQB should work etc.

If you look at the Kickstarter page, he linked a number interviews he has done which states many of those details. But again people aren't really seeing the big picture of the Kickstarter. I tried to explain it a few posts up.

[PuFu 4600]

Perhaps he could have worded it better by saying "sounds" instead of "looked" but it's pretty obvious that he's talking about the idea, nothing tangible. If you don't want to contribute to another tactical shooter, that's fine, but why are you looking down on those that do (and support it with their own money)?

To ANOTHER tactical shooter? What is the last shooter of this sort that YOU have contributed towards? In my book, the last tac-shooter were R6 and SWAT.

Besides, i am not looking down towards those people pushing 1-2.5k (i do agree that it might have came out wrong). I am just amazed that someone will be willing to spend that amount of money on an idea of a game that is porly (at best) explained...

If you look at the Kickstarter page, he linked a number interviews he has done which states many of those details. But again people aren't really seeing the big picture of the Kickstarter. I tried to explain it a few posts up.

Listen, talking and making promises is really really easy. It is even easier to write those down. Case of point, the fact that he worked on those games means very little to me, and the information he presents is just as shallow.

I would have expected from a guy that OWNs a Indie game company, to have some sort of:

a) in depth explanation (especially since the target market would be able to understand and digest that sort of info)

b) some sort of mission statement and objectives (look it up how this should look like)

c) could have made some easy to follow mock ups, including some small proof of concepts (in the end, this lad is a GAME ARTIST, who OWNs a GAME Development Comany - this is what he does for a living)

instead of the above, there is some sort of video that has this lad talking (the video itself is poorly edited from pieces of individual sentences, as if the guy was really unable to have a unified and coherent 2-3 min speech). The cherry on top is his kid at the end of the video, which makes it for me, unreliable. Same goes for the bloody text and the pack of guns behind it.

It all looks that it was thrown together in a hurry

Point is, if you want my money, make sure you present yourself in a fashion that will make me wanna give it to you. This doesn't happen here, not for me at least. Please don't preach to the preacher.

If he doesn't make the money he needs, he has only himself to blame (not the gaming communities, or the COD kiddies or anyone else).

Edited March 11, 2012 by PuFu

[Defunkt 431]

I don't see crowd-funding as a viable model and I certainly wouldn't want to invest in such a vague pitch. No mention of adversarial multiplayer, should I presume there is none?

A model I would like to see is studios licensing mod-teams to create 3rd party DLC. Based perhaps on a 50/50 revenue split teams could market partial conversions or expansions but are allowed to use core assets rather than having to create everything from scratch.

[Nutlink 10]

To ANOTHER tactical shooter? What is the last shooter of this sort that YOU have contributed towards? In my book, the last tac-shooter were R6 and SWAT.

Besides, i am not looking down towards those people pushing 1-2.5k (i do agree that it might have came out wrong). I am just amazed that someone will be willing to spend that amount of money on an idea of a game that is porly (at best) explained..

Fine, a new tactical shooter, whatever, you get the point. And the last shooter that I contributed towards? GRAW 2, I did a fair amount of modding that game to increase it's realism aspect and remove arcade-like elements brought over from the console version. It had potential, but it just had too many failings to be a real tac shooter. I've also donated time and money to Blackfoot Studios in regards to Ground Branch and the now cancelled Sky Gods. Then I also made maps in RvS and OGR years ago, so yes, I HAVE contributed towards tac shooters over the last 10+ years. I've also KNOWN Serellan since he moved up from being a modder in the Rogue Spear time to actually working on Athena Sword and the Ghost Recon expansions, much like Wolfsong was in OGR before he was hired by Grin. Serellan stated that he wants to get back to his roots, and if his roots are even half of what Rogue Spear/OGR were, I'll back him up on it over someone coming out of nowhere showing renders of M4s and frag grenades.

I don't see crowd-funding as a viable model and I certainly wouldn't want to invest in such a vague pitch. No mention of adversarial multiplayer, should I presume there is none?

A model I would like to see is studios licensing mod-teams to create 3rd party DLC. Based perhaps on a 50/50 revenue split teams could market partial conversions or expansions but are allowed to use core assets rather than having to create everything from scratch.

Re-read what BOTA:16 posted before. This isn't all the money for the game, it's just the money to show investors "Hey, we have this many people willing to pay out this amount of money towards getting this project started, will you fund us?" Also, I'd rather NOT pay money for mods, ever. There are very, very few that I would have ever been wiling to spend money on, but if they do something like that then we'll end up with horse armor DLC all over again.

[Defunkt 431]

I understand what they intend to use the money for but it's merely a variation on the theme, I still won't be investing.

Vis-a-vis paying for mods, if they're not worth the money why would you but if they are why shouldn't you? At least you'd be getting something more than a vague promise of a game of indeterminate design at some date in the future. I know which I'd rather part with cash for.

[Nutlink 10]

No, but for a $15 pledge you get the game when it's released. Regardless of how the game turns out, $15 is pretty cheap for a game, even if it doesn't turn out to be very good. Beats the hell out of dropping $60 on another Call of Duty or Battlefield 3. Again, for paying for mods, almost every single mod that was worth paying for that I've tried in the last decade+ has become a commercial game (Counter-Strike, Red Orchestra, Killing Floor, DOTA, Garry's Mod all come to mind), with the only exception being MechWarrior Living Legends for Crysis. While there are many great mods for many games, most of them I wouldn't pay for, including the ones in ArmA.

[Defunkt 431]

I can't think of any ArmA mods I'd pay for either but I suspect there would be plenty given suitable motivation. As is there's no stepping stone between free non-commerical addon and full engine license and that, coming back to the topic, is where I see crowd-funding as a flawed attempt to bridge that gulf. If we want to see teams like Liberation Front get the chance to fund their creative vision (and they will only ever do so by addressing an actual gap in the market with a quality product - to gaming's benefit) why force them into this all-or-nothing do-or-die gambit because of entrenched notions about what should or should not be paid for? I still see buying a semi-pro Liberation Front 2011 DLC as a much better way of contributing to what they're doing than having them or others like them ask me to take a chance on pre-funding a full game development cycle.

[4 IN 1 0]

Fine, a new tactical shooter, whatever, you get the point. And the last shooter that I contributed towards? GRAW 2, I did a fair amount of modding that game to increase it's realism aspect and remove arcade-like elements brought over from the console version. It had potential, but it just had too many failings to be a real tac shooter. I've also donated time and money to Blackfoot Studios in regards to Ground Branch and the now cancelled Sky Gods. Then I also made maps in RvS and OGR years ago, so yes, I HAVE contributed towards tac shooters over the last 10+ years. I've also KNOWN Serellan since he moved up from being a modder in the Rogue Spear time to actually working on Athena Sword and the Ghost Recon expansions, much like Wolfsong was in OGR before he was hired by Grin. Serellan stated that he wants to get back to his roots, and if his roots are even half of what Rogue Spear/OGR were, I'll back him up on it over someone coming out of nowhere showing renders of M4s and frag grenades.

I am going to reuse this graph on you.

The point that Pufu make is that there is just nothing, not even a prove of concept or concept art or even just a plan on paper that enable people to actually trust what he said or understand what he is going to do, a thing that blackfoot did have, without that the hold thing is just a really bad presentation, and that is not going to get te funding he needs. And if you still cannot understand all you need to do is to look around at all other indie devs at how they do things, because it is more then posting video saying beautiful words.

Edited March 14, 2012 by 4 IN 1

[PuFu 4600]

I've also KNOWN Serellan since he moved up from being a modder in the Rogue Spear time to actually working on Athena Sword and the Ghost Recon expansions, much like Wolfsong was in OGR before he was hired by Grin. Serellan stated that he wants to get back to his roots, and if his roots are even half of what Rogue Spear/OGR were, I'll back him up on it over someone coming out of nowhere showing renders of M4s and frag grenades.

Ah, so this is a bit sentimental on your part since you KNOW the lad first handed. Should have said that before.

I never mentioned him showing 3d models of 1337 m4s or nades or alike. I remember saying mock-ups and proof of concept. Or a proper mission statement instead of that lame video. Please have a look around on what can be done with a computer these days and with NO money (that includes software, since there are free alternatives for all 2d and 3d software, and commercial free game engines).

Again, he will NOT get the start-up money showing some investors that there is a market for this sort of game, not because there isn't such a market, but because he DOESN'T know how or he's too lazy to sell an idea.

I am going to reuse this graph[/url ] on you.

The point that Pufu make is that there is just nothing, not even a prove of concept or concept art or even just a plan on paper that enable people to actually trust what he said or understand what he is going to do, a thing that blackfoot did have, without that the hold thing is just a really bad presentation, and that is not going to get te funding he needs. And if you still cannot understand all you need to do is to look around at all other indie devs at how they do things, because it is more then posting video saying beautiful words.

here's a lad that got my point. kudos to you

[Nutlink 10]

I am going to reuse this graph[/url ] on you.

The point that Pufu make is that there is just nothing, not even a prove of concept or concept art or even just a plan on paper that enable people to actually trust what he said or understand what he is going to do, a thing that blackfoot did have, without that the hold thing is just a really bad presentation, and that is not going to get te funding he needs. And if you still cannot understand all you need to do is to look around at all other indie devs at how they do things, because it is more then posting video saying beautiful words.

Again, while he may not have anything to show off, Serellan has a history with the tactical shooter crowd, and he describes a (very) rough idea of what he wants (stating he wants it to be focused on CQB with squad management, team play, realistic weapon presentation, objective based, non-linear, and definitely including coop). He's not some random guy who came out of nowhere. His previous work speaks for itself in regards to what he imagines and describes. I don't look at other indie devs because I don't care for more platformers, RPGs, or anything like that. What I want is a new modern tactical shooter based on CQB, something we haven't seen for over 6 years, and not a great one for close to a decade. And if there is anyone who could possibly deliver it, he's definitely one of them.

Ah, so this is a bit sentimental on your part since you KNOW the lad first handed. Should have said that before.

I never mentioned him showing 3d models of 1337 m4s or nades or alike. I remember saying mock-ups and proof of concept. Or a proper mission statement instead of that lame video. Please have a look around on what can be done with a computer these days and with NO money (that includes software, since there are free alternatives for all 2d and 3d software, and commercial free game engines).

Again, he will NOT get the start-up money showing some investors that there is a market for this sort of game, not because there isn't such a market, but because he DOESN'T know how or he's too lazy to sell an idea.

It's not really sentimental. I should have said that I've known OF him, and his work, since he was a modder. Bit of a difference there, and my fault for not clarifying. I know what can be done with free software and engines, such as UDK and the CryEngine SDK, plus I've been using Blender for the past 6 years as an alternative to Maya when they were bought out. I don't care what can be done for free or cheap, I care about what can be done period. Serellan has proven himself a capable developer time and again, along with a passion for the traditional Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon style gameplay that is all but non existent these days.

The way I see it is that I'd rather get a mediocre CQB tactical shooter instead of no tac shooter at all. What he's doing now would be the same thing if BIS went under and 10 years from now someone like Dwarden decided he wanted to create a new game in the spirit of OFP/ArmA. I'm just surprised to see so many people resisting the idea of a brand new CQB oriented tac shooter rather than the alternative which is......what, exactly? I can't think of any other CQB tac shooters besides Ground Branch and this that are in the works. If I'm wrong, please correct me, but I don't know of a single one, at least with a modern setting. The closest I can think of is a mod for RO2, and even that is based on Vietnam.

[PuFu 4600]

Again, while he may not have anything to show off, Serellan has a history with the tactical shooter crowd, and he describes a (very) rough idea of what he wants (stating he wants it to be focused on CQB with squad management, team play, realistic weapon presentation, objective based, non-linear, and definitely including coop). He's not some random guy who came out of nowhere. His previous work speaks for itself in regards to what he imagines and describes. I don't look at other indie devs because I don't care for more platformers, RPGs, or anything like that. What I want is a new modern tactical shooter based on CQB, something we haven't seen for over 6 years, and not a great one for close to a decade. And if there is anyone who could possibly deliver it, he's definitely one of them.

The fact that he worked on those games is really nice, but i for one am NOT aware of what HE actually did during that time. Don't get me wrong, i am not saying he is not capable, but for the most out there, he is as capable as the next guy.

I care about what can be done period. Serellan has proven himself a capable developer time and again, along with a passion for the traditional Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon style gameplay that is all but non existent these days.

That is debatable, at least from where i am stading.

The way I see it is that I'd rather get a mediocre CQB tactical shooter instead of no tac shooter at all. What he's doing now would be the same thing if BIS went under and 10 years from now someone like Dwarden decided he wanted to create a new game in the spirit of OFP/ArmA. I'm just surprised to see so many people resisting the idea of a brand new CQB oriented tac shooter rather than the alternative which is......what, exactly? I can't think of any other CQB tac shooters besides Ground Branch and this that are in the works. If I'm wrong, please correct me, but I don't know of a single one, at least with a modern setting. The closest I can think of is a mod for RO2, and even that is based on Vietnam.

I'd rather get no CQB shooter then. The last sub-mediocre one was DR (RR was just fail). Thanks but no thanks.

I guess most ppl are not resisting the generic idea about a tac-shooter, but rather they are not convinced (just like i am not) about his presentation and information given, hence they are resilient sending money into the wild. You are gonna tell me that 15-20 bucks is the equivalent of a couple of beers and a pack of smokes. Yes, while this is true, i would rather have a those than sending money towards a lad that, from my POV, has shown me nothing. In my book, having been part of a game development doesn't mean you can do the same thing over again, with completely different conditions

[4 IN 1 0]

Again, even BI have to show us something inorder for us to actually give them money before getting the game, it is more then just personal reputation and whatever unicorn stuff that matters, it is the basic marketing that gives you the money, and the rate of donation he is getting reflex the reality, you have to put more faith into people for them to give you the money

Edit: meanwhile, someone scored 3mil by having slightly more retail

Edited March 14, 2012 by 4 IN 1

[Cyteless 10]

I've thrown $15 towards it, as well as this.

Hope it goes well for them :)

[onlyrazor 11]

That's all nice, but his deadline is absurd. The game is probably so obscure he'd be lucky to get that money in two months.

[sic-disaster 311]

Yeah I wonder what he was thinking when he set that deadline for that amount of money.

It seems to me like he set himself up for failure with that decision, and afterwards more publishers can say "See? There's no interest. Now we're never going to bother."

It feels like a rush job.

[Fox '09 14]

No, but for a $15 pledge you get the game when it's released. Regardless of how the game turns out, $15 is pretty cheap for a game, even if it doesn't turn out to be very good. Beats the hell out of dropping $60 on another Call of Duty or Battlefield 3. Again, for paying for mods, almost every single mod that was worth paying for that I've tried in the last decade+ has become a commercial game (Counter-Strike, Red Orchestra, Killing Floor, DOTA, Garry's Mod all come to mind), with the only exception being MechWarrior Living Legends for Crysis. While there are many great mods for many games, most of them I wouldn't pay for, including the ones in ArmA.

I have no idea what you are talking about with Garry's mod. sure it's become a more commercialized game, but it's still relatively unknown. The modding community is still very active & in fact thriving. Yes, Garry's Mod is a game now - and I'm very pleased with the fact, after it started selling on steam there have been incredible advancements to the game. And if i'm not mistaken, the same people who helped ages ago are still working on the game today. Nothing changes except for the price, and 10 bucks isn't much.

[Flogger23m 2]

Apparently he will post a video with some more insight into his plans soon. He probably should have done so sooner than halfway through the time period though.

[Fox '09 14]

Just noticed the ground branch photos, why not turn on anti aliasing? If you're going to demonstrate graphics at least turn on anti aliasing or take super high resolution shots & downscale them. It looks awful without AA.

I hope he takes this far and if he is going to release a video, I might pitch in depending on what he's got to show.

Edited March 17, 2012 by Fox '09

[PuFu 4600]

what photos? Link?

[Fox '09 14]

http://www.blackfootstudios.com/Donkey/Training_01.jpg

This one.

[mr burns 132]

That´s a shot from Ground Branch :confused:

Speaking of which: Get it done already!! *nerdrage*

[4 IN 1 0]

Now that FAQ video is something that I am talking about

Delighted to hand out 50 bucks, hope more people join the effort as well

(I do notice a slight boost in donation, I think the new video could need some more online games media attentions)

Edited March 16, 2012 by 4 IN 1

[Mr. Charles 22]

Did he say "Armee" instead of ArmA?

[sic-disaster 311]

He did :p

[Defunkt 431]

Y-pYW_Et9bA

With more details (or at least intentions) on the table (engine options, player POV, competitive multiplayer) I'm coming around to the idea of chancing a small donation.