Question for non-backers of Hero U

[penguinfan]

A fellow backer asked a question on another forum

http://www.gog.com/e...e_coming/page16

 

CoreyCole: So, are we giving up if the Kickstarter fails? We think we should. The lowest-selling of our games reached over 100,000 players. If there aren't even 7,000 players who think that we know how to design a great game, then we're clearly in the wrong business. That doesn't have anything to do with how we feel about ourselves and our skills; it just means there isn't a market for what we do.

 

 

I've been giving it some thought about whether the project fails and have read some articles about failed Kickstarter projects - there are a lot of posts on the topic if you Google it :). Sometimes seemingly awesome products still don't manage to make it. It's just because there's no market, exactly what Corey said. The number of people out there that want a QFG-like game may be too low.

 

While I would just resign myself to that fact there is something that just doesn't add up:

 

Leisure Suit Larry: Reloaded and SpaceVenture managed to meet larger targets with lower average pledges/backer. They actually managed to get ~10,000 backers for their projects for what is essentially a similar demographic (i.e. those old enough to remember Sierra adventure games) yet the LSL and Space Quest games are not as good as the QFG IMHO only because there was so much more replay value in a QFG game (I do love those games too mind you and have backed Al Lowe and the "Two Guys from Andromeda"). So I'm kind of surprised that the 10,000 backers on those projects didn't back Hero-U... I mean why wouldn't you help another ex-Sierra developer get back into business? Even for a small pledge...

 

So, to those of you who are a member of the group in question, why would you not want to pledge anything to Hero U?

 

Did the QfG games kinda suck in your opinion, and you'd just as soon the adventure-tainted-by-RPGish-skills die off?

 

Or is it really big-time kickstarter fatigue like some people are speculating ("no no if I log into my kickstarter account again I'll get malnutrition from all the ramen that follows")?

 

Or something else entirely?

 

Note: this is both for curiousity sake and in case there is something in the Hero U campaign that is giving the wrong impression and could be fixed, do not plan to hard-sell to people who respond ;)

[tomimt]

I said it on some other forum, but at this moment I'm not that interested about junior adventurers quest for herodom. It's a bit hard to explain, really, as the game will most likely be good on it's own right, but it just doesn't appeal to me at this time.

[penguinfan]

Can I take that as a variant of #1, that you don't really care to see more games of the sort the Coles make (in other words supporting evidence for Corey's theory)? I.e. not that they actively suck, but more of a 'don't care there's plenty of other stuff that I like better'?

[Troels Pleimert]

I really hope the Coles get their project funded. I have heard from enough rabid QfG fans to know that the interest is definitely out there. So, perish the thought, should Hero-U not meet its projected minimum, dare I say it has nothing to do with lack of interest, and probably more to do with lack of promotion. Though I haven't been following the Hero-U Kickstarter enough to know if this is really the case.

 

Personally I haven't backed Hero-U because I have never been much of a QfG fan. In fact, anything that remotely smells of stats and character building turns me off. That's why I've never been able to complete games I otherwise thought were brilliant, like Final Fantasy VII or Anachronox.

[penguinfan]

Ok that answer I understand: just not a fan of the genre, so it's no skin off your back whether more get made or not. There are plenty of other genres where I'd feel the same way.

 

Do you really know any QfG fans who have not heard of Hero U yet? There have been lots of interviews, including a really long one on adventuregamers.com, one on kotaku, RPS... bunch of threads on game forums, including all the forums from adventure kickstarters, a huge long one on gog, articles on the andromedan post... where would those QfG fans be hiding?

[torchinomotorino]

Despite the misgivings about the QfG games or Kickstarters in general, wouldn't it make more sense to support every restart initiative from Sierra alumnus, specifically those who developed adventure games? I'm not saying you should break the bank, but even a dollar of token support goes a long way to re-establishing market interest in mainstream adventure gaming.

[MusicallyInspired]

I haven't backed it because A) I wasn't a QFG fan. That's not to say that I don't want to see Hero-U succeed, but B) I have no money to pledge. No, not even $5 because my credit card is maxed and I have no money to put on it because I'm flat broke and have been in financial dire straits for the past 5 months. It's a wonder we've survived this long, actually. We were almost evicted from our apartment twice in the past 2 months and we're behind in bills. That's why I haven't pledged. I'm sorry but not everybody just has money to donate on silly games, at the end of the day.

 

Also, the fact that QFG had more replay value has nothing to do with it being a better game or not. You know, IMHO.

[Capn_Ascii]

I haven't backed it yet because I'm a procrastinator. :P I'll make my pledge probably within the last 48 hours or so. Why? Dunno, really; something in me seems to dislike comitting to a project that may not actually make it. Waiting until the last minute means a better overall idea of whether or not the thing will get funded at all.

 

I'm not the only such pledger out there; need I mention what happened with the SpaceVenture itself? ;) With any luck, Hero-U will see a similar last-minute surge.

 

Hopefully. I really do want to see this one make it. :(

[MusicallyInspired]

To me, Kickstarter isn't one of those things where I'll contribute to all the things that hold even a slight interest for me. I consider it a special thing that I contribute to only what I consider exceptionally special. So far, only DFA and SV have fit that bill, besides my earlier reasons given.

[penguinfan]

I haven't backed it yet because I'm a procrastinator. :P I'll make my pledge probably within the last 48 hours or so. Why? Dunno, really; something in me seems to dislike comitting to a project that may not actually make it. Waiting until the last minute means a better overall idea of whether or not the thing will get funded at all.

 

Thanks for that insight into another question that I had wondered about! Of course if there are too many people who find backing non-winners a psychological put-off, then kickstarter projects all become doomed waiting for that critical mass for appearing successful, but luckily we're not all the same ;)

[Capn_Ascii]

Of course if there are too many people who find backing non-winners a psychological put-off, then kickstarter projects all become doomed waiting for that critical mass for appearing successful

Yeah, it's a bit of a balancing act.

 

Psychologically, the idea is that the more money the project has *already* been pledged, the more likely people will be to chip in and try to help push it up to the final mark. If someone sees that 5,000 of 50,000 has been pledged, then they think "Oh, this isn't drawing enough support to make it. No sense wasting my time." The same person can check later, see that 40,000 of 50,000 has been pledged, and say "Hey, this one might actually make it! I'm going to throw my hat into the ring and help them squeak across the finish line!" There's a lot of Kickstarters out there that follow this pattern - low initial support, but an avalanche of backers in the last few days as everyone gets off their asses and pledges. Ah, hard deadlines - the great motivator. ;)

 

Unfortunately, as you said, this creates a vicious circle. A project that might actually have a *lot* of potential supporters might well not meet the funding because none of them are pledging. Why? Because none of the *others* are pledging. Everybody is holding back their support because they think it won't matter - and their unwillingness to step forward and pledge causes the same sense of defeatism in all the *other* would-be pledgers of the same mentality. This is pretty much the same reason why a lot of people don't vote.

 

IMHO, what Kickstarter needs is both a "pledge tracker" and a "support tracker". The latter would let people pledge initial idealogical support for a project without actually pledging money (yet); other would-be pledgers would be able to see how popular a given idea is and have a better idea of whether they want to help or not.

[torchinomotorino]

IMHO, what Kickstarter needs is both a "pledge tracker" and a "support tracker". The latter would let people pledge initial idealogical support for a project without actually pledging money (yet); other would-be pledgers would be able to see how popular a given idea is and have a better idea of whether they want to help or not.

 

Hmm, I believe you can monitor pledges and supporters at kicktraq.com. I agree though, having those tools available on each Kickstarter page would help encourage pledging.

 

However, a pledger already has the option to remove, reduce, or increase their pledge any time until the end of the pledge period. Even if the Kickstarter is at $5,000 out of $50,000 on the final day, there is no risk with giving a pledge. Unfortunately, the opposite is true - a pledger could pledge $10,000 on the first day and change it to $1.00 on the last.

[penguinfan]

I think kicktraq only shows count of people who officially pledged, as opposed to the number of people who have "starred" the project for later consideration. People like Capn_Ascii who like to wait for signs of success would likely show up in the latter type of count.

 

If I'm wrong and you can see people who have starred a project without having pledged yet, please speak up! As far as I know there is NO way to do so, kickstarter even removed showing starred projects in a profile (and hunting down individuals who might have starred a project in order to check, was rather impractical even then).

[Frede]

I really hope the Coles get their project funded. I have heard from enough rabid QfG fans to know that the interest is definitely out there. So, perish the thought, should Hero-U not meet its projected minimum, dare I say it has nothing to do with lack of interest, and probably more to do with lack of promotion. Though I haven't been following the Hero-U Kickstarter enough to know if this is really the case.

 

Personally I haven't backed Hero-U because I have never been much of a QfG fan. In fact, anything that remotely smells of stats and character building turns me off. That's why I've never been able to complete games I otherwise thought were brilliant, like Final Fantasy VII or Anachronox.

 

What Troels said. The only RPGs I have been able to get into are the two first Fallout games and Diablo II. Generally speaking, Fantasy never really interested me as a genre. So while I would love to see more games from the Sierra-alumni, this isn't really going to be my kind of game and I don't really have the money to make a substantial difference.

[penguinfan]

What Troels said. The only RPGs I have been able to get into are the two first Fallout games and Diablo II. Generally speaking, Fantasy never really interested me as a genre. So while I would love to see more games from the Sierra-alumni, this isn't really going to be my kind of game and I don't really have the money to make a substantial difference.

 

Well if 5k other SV backers think the same, then collectively you're wrong (though individually right)... but I don't know how to talk masses of anti-fantasy-but-Sierra-well-wishers to invest $5 for being on a website honor roll ;)

 

Personally I have loved both sci-fi and fantasy ever since first encountering them (whenever that was, being an avid early reader) so didn't realize that sci-fi would be an easier sell than fantasy themes.

[penguinfan]

Wait, I thought of an alternative to the $5 pledge for those who like to help out the Coles comeback even if the game has a "boring" theme... could help out with voting on the plethora of articles and forum threads on Hero U (isn't it ok to vote up something because the Coles are good designers, even though their chosen genre leaves one cold?)

 

Well if it does strike you as ok, give a quick look here for forums where you're already registered (I don't expect people to bother to sign up for new accounts to help out a project they aren't even backing)

http://www.questformoreglory.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3155

[Decaffeinated Jedi]

I love the Quest for Glory series. In fact, I'd place Quest for Glory I and II alongside Space Quest III as my favorite Sierra games ever. For what it's worth, I'm also an avid RPG player -- whether the setting is fantasy, sci-fi, or whatever. That said, I haven't backed Hero-U (at least not yet).

 

Why not? Honestly, the bits of gameplay that I've seen in the project videos just haven't "grabbed" me yet. The tile-based art feels like a step backwards from the Quest for Glory series, and the whole look-and-feel reminds me a bit too much of a browser-based Facebook game.* Granted, we've seen very little of the gameplay (understandable for a project so early in development), so it's probably not fair to judge the project at this stage. Nevertheless, what I've seen hasn't inspired me to pledge yet.

 

There's a decent chance that I'll contribute a few bucks to Hero-U before the deadline arrives; if nothing else, I have faith in the Coles, and I want to see them succeed. Up to this point, however, I just haven't been able to get as excited about the project as I am about SpaceVenture (or even Quest for Infamy by Infamous Quests).

 

Jess

 

* Specifically, it reminds me a lot of Dungeons & Dragons: Heroes of Neverwinter on Facebook.

[drdrslashvohaul]

Well if 5k other SV backers think the same, then collectively you're wrong (though individually right)... but I don't know how to talk masses of anti-fantasy-but-Sierra-well-wishers to invest $5 for being on a website honor roll ;)

 

Personally I have loved both sci-fi and fantasy ever since first encountering them (whenever that was, being an avid early reader) so didn't realize that sci-fi would be an easier sell than fantasy themes.

 

Sci-fi is obviously very similar, but is not the same as fantasy. I'm also not a big RPG or Fantasy fan, and I haven't pledged to Hero-U, nor do I intend to. Wishing a project well and actually putting one's money where one's mouth is are two very different things.

 

I'm also curious how collectively "we" could be "wrong"? I'm not picking a fight or taking offence, I'm just intrigued about the argument you're making here. I don't think any of us are saying, absolutely, that "fantasy sucks" or "Hero-U sucks", rather, "fantasy and Hero-U don't appeal to us". (In rather broad brush strokes.)

 

For me, Kickstarter is about backing the things you really want to see succeed and would be willing to spend money on anyway. My first instinct with SpaceVenture wasn't about getting the game funded per se it was "I want a copy of this game". The reason I pledged much more than the RRP was the additional emotional attachment to Space Quest, great respect for the Two Guys, and the nostalgia of this internet community which was the first place I really interacted with other humans who I didn't know "in real life". In other words, I pledged despite the existence of Troels Pleimert, Frederik Olsen and Anders Kalle. ;)

 

Since I have no emotional attachment to the project (never played QfG, nor does the genre or the style of game appeal to me that much), and do not want to buy the product, I won't be pledging.

 

I'm sure the designers are great. I am not saying the product is bad for what it is. I simply wouldn't know, nor care (if that's not too blunt).

 

I loved the Sierra games, and the more of these things succeed the more chance there is that a competitive industry can be built up producing a load of really good games.

 

However, I would rather that these projects got funded "organically". Pledges to projects without any real emotional or financial attachment won't help in the long run. Sure, the product will get funded, but what about the sales afterwards? Backing a business that is doomed to fail because people think it's a great idea but wouldn't buy the resultant product to me is not the way to go. The market might be there for the idea, but unless the idea is translated into a desirable product, it will be worth nought.

 

But hey - I'm a selfish arsehole. ;)

 

What I will say is that you guys have done a decent job in advertising and promoting it. I say that as an individual, in the sense that I've heard about it quite a bit over recent weeks through Chris Pope's blog post and these threads on the forums. I know about the product and have spent time thinking about whether I want to pledge or not. This would lead me to two questions:

 

a) are you pushing it this well in other areas and markets;

B) and if you are and still aren't getting backers, is there something wrong with the product and/or sales pitch?

[penguinfan]

Sci-fi is obviously very similar, but is not the same as fantasy. I'm also not a big RPG or Fantasy fan, and I haven't pledged to Hero-U, nor do I intend to. Wishing a project well and actually putting one's money where one's mouth is are two very different things.

 

I'm also curious how collectively "we" could be "wrong"? I'm not picking a fight or taking offence, I'm just intrigued about the argument you're making here. I don't think any of us are saying, absolutely, that "fantasy sucks" or "Hero-U sucks", rather, "fantasy and Hero-U don't appeal to us". (In rather broad brush strokes.)

...

 

a) are you pushing it this well in other areas and markets;

B) and if you are and still aren't getting backers, is there something wrong with the product and/or sales pitch?

 

Obviously too confusingly stated, but look at the quote that I had pulled -- individually Frede *can't* make a difference, but there have been some small number of kickstarter projects (> 0, saw an article about them somewhere) that have managed to catch the eye of a bunch of well-wishers and get thousands of bucks out of a "trivial" tier. So each person who says "I" can't make a difference is kinda right, but collectively all such well-wishers who donated a small amount *would* make a difference. And then I tried to indicate that was a theoretical quibble, and I'm not going to try to talk my representative sample (those of you kind enough to respond) into doing a token donation, since there really isn't much point without reaching the larger masses.

 

To answer your last question, Hero U is indeed being mentioned in lots of other game forums around the world, and has gotten 548 new backers in the previous 3 days. The problem is that the slow time was too slow, so it's a major game of catch-up now. If there are misconceptions still around that are getting in the way (no, not appreciating fantasy is not a "misconception") then they need to be addressed ASAP. The biggest clue I heard in this thread was from Jess, in the facebook-ish vibes he got. I would not touch this project with a 10-foot pole if it were going to be facebook-ish (hate all things facebook, including the pathetic games!) so one of us has to be wrong. Also seems ironic to me, because the Coles have intentionally stayed away from "casual" games because they don't like them either, unlike Jane Jensen who went casual to make a living (and got funds to invest in her "real" game company, so that strategy wasn't bad). So to me this smells like a misconception, and I'm thinking the Coles should address this explicitly, as best they can...

[penguinfan]

Why not? Honestly, the bits of gameplay that I've seen in the project videos just haven't "grabbed" me yet. The tile-based art feels like a step backwards from the Quest for Glory series, and the whole look-and-feel reminds me a bit too much of a browser-based Facebook game.* Granted, we've seen very little of the gameplay (understandable for a project so early in development), so it's probably not fair to judge the project at this stage. Nevertheless, what I've seen hasn't inspired me to pledge yet.

 

* Specifically, it reminds me a lot of Dungeons & Dragons: Heroes of Neverwinter on Facebook.

 

Thank you for explaining your concern! There may still be enough time to update the pitch video to specifically better address this "gaming lite" sort of concern. I'm bringing it to the attention of the Coles hoping they can fix the video before the remind-me-later hordes return to take another look. It is *not* realistic to expect most people to read a bunch of interviews to understand the genre of game, the pitch needs to be appealing enough to make them want to learn more.

[Dat Engineer]

Frankly it's for the opposite reason of many of the other posters here. I loved the Quest For Glory series. The storyline was very gripping, the graphics were great, the gameplay was incredible. This, well... How do I put this?

 

It doesn't look like a faithful continuation.

 

Which surprises me considering that it's being headed up by the two original designers of the game. The cartoony art style is a bit of a step down after the neo-Gothic masterpiece that was Shadows Of Darkness.

 

The other reason is, I think it's unreasonable that all of these Kickstarters are asking us for exorbitant amounts of money back-to-back, especially after many of us shelled out lots of our hard-earned bucks for SpaceVenture and Quest For Infamy. There's more than a bit of fatigue involved.

[penguinfan]

The Coles fully admit that the art is going to be a step down from the multi-million dollar Sierra classics -- there has been a lot of discussion about the art budgets for those. If they could have counted on Project-Eternity-sized budget they would have gone for the old style, but since that was a huge long-shot they thought it was ridiculous even putting it as a stretch goal: "if we make $3M, we'll give you QfG 4 type art" (I agree, that would have been rather pointless)

 

The reason the Coles didn't opt for the in-between art budget (3D models of SpaceVenture vs the 2D Sierra graphic paintings) is that their own talents lie in other areas (story, character design, puzzle design, programming) -- there will be no Mark Crowe investing long hours into the art as an owner of the company, so they can't be *too* ridiculous about expecting their artists to put in long hours for little pay.

 

So the step-down to simpler art style is fully acknowledged, and people for whom fancy adventure game art was an essential part of the appeal are just not going to be impressed (on the other hand, fans who are still able to enjoy QfG 1 or 2 level of art, should be able to deal with Hero U art also, since it is talented artists like Eriq Chang implementing this simpler style). Some of those people are backing anyways, realizing that their best bet at a QfG sequel is if the Coles stay in the industry and succeed well enough to get a shot at either licensing the IP or being contracted by Activision (just like successful launch of the Two Guys' company is our best hope of an actual Space Quest sequel someday). Clearly not everyone has enough money or motivation to pre-order a game for just a "chance", so I'd guess most hold-outs for QfG art are non-backers like yourself.

 

On the other hand, I don't really get the part about "unreasonable" and "exorbitant"... short of having a game designers' guild that coordinates all kickstarter game projects of a certain size and above, so that no more than one decent-sized project launches per 6 months, how could game designers be expected to pull that off? If the Coles had waited another 6 months, who is to say some other project wouldn't have jumped in ahead of them so they would have to wait another 6 months, and so forth. We all know that some people already spent their whole entertainment budget for the year on earlier projects, but as long as crowdfunding continues to thrive there may never be another time when a would-be project leader can guarantee the wallets of their fans have "recharged" from the last great game project. And if crowdfunding doesn't continue to thrive, then the opportunity to use crowdfunding to kickstart an Indie game company may be over!

 

"Exorbitant" doesn't make sense to me either -- the $400k-$500k range goals set by Sierra alums so far is just not out of line for development costs of a decent-sized Indie game. They aren't making arcade-style shoot-em-ups after all!