Unsung Story Raises Ruckus With PvP That Kickstarter Backers Don't Want

[John Keefer]

Unsung Story Raises Ruckus With PvP That Kickstarter Backers Don't Want

Spiritual successor to Final Fantasy Tactics may not be much of a spiritual successor after all.

Amid delays and some vague updates, Unsung Story has been mired in uncertainty since it raised more than $660,000 in it's Kickstarter campaign in January 2014 [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/131174-Playdeks-Unsung-Story-to-Take-Episodic-Approach-to-Storytelling]. Developer Playdek had promised the 15,000+ backers a "a spiritual successor in a storied line of epic tactical RPGs designed by Yasumi Matsuno," creator of Final Fantasy Tactics and Vagrant Story. What they will be getting, according to the latest update to backers, may not be close.

The update on the Kickstarter site [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/482445197/unsung-story-tale-of-the-guardians/posts/1359570] from playdek CEO Joel Goodman, said the game was being delayed to late 2016 because of a "financial crunch" resulting in layoffs, as well as interest from outside investors. While that is status quo these days for many Kickstarter projects, the part of the update that has some backers up in arms is what appears to be new PvP addition to the game. Goodman said in his update that a four-stage rollout of PvP, something backers apparently don't want, and was never part of the original FFT.

"The PvP focus is not a sudden switch, but more importantly to the backers, it does not impact the single player campaign mode as far as content and depth," Goodman told Kotaku [http://kotaku.com/unsung-story-is-a-660-000-kickstarter-disaster-1732312002]. "The best way to ensure that the campaigns have balanced scenarios with good A.I. is to gather play testing data from online players in head to head matches, and then polish the game with that feedback... Due to the lack of consistent updates the backers did not know that this has been our internal development approach, but the idea that online game play was going to be in the game was covered in the KS video, as well as subsequent updates. It is a bonus to the single-player story experience."

The update prompted numerous calls for refunds, but Goodman avoided the Kotaku question on the subject, saying only "We are delivering the game and rewards that the backers are entitled to."

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but this could very well be another in a growing line of Kickstarter disasters in the video game space.

Source: Kotaku [http://kotaku.com/unsung-story-is-a-660-000-kickstarter-disaster-1732312002]

Permalink

 

[Devin Barker]

Wow didnt know this existed but would have backed it in a heart beat (love FFT) but glad I didnt. I feel like too many games focus way to much on multiplayer when its really not necessary. I get that they say it will help the AI but I think there is a better method that wont bloat out this game with an unwanted feature.

 

[chocolate pickles]

Oh boo hoo. They're not taking away from the game - just adding new features. Sounds like the backers are a bunch of crybabys.

 

[Naqel]

Honestly, I'm kind of baffled as to what kind of person dosen't want a multiplayer mode in a FF:Tactics successor...

Not only is it a natural fit for a game composed primarily of what is already effectively PvP skirmishes against an AI, it also adds nearly infinite replay value.

Hell, for a lot of those people, it was probably the one component missing in the originals.
It was one of the features that had me back the project.

 

[Morti]

Oh boo hoo. They're not taking away from the game - just adding new features. Sounds like the backers are a bunch of crybabys.

But at the same time is " was being delayed to late 2016 because of a "financial crunch" resulting in layoffs". It's not an irrational stance for backers to go "well maybe you would have better finances if you stopped wasting our money on developing features we never wanted".

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

Right, I'm slightly worried now. I was wondering why I hadn't seen that many updates for it.

PVP sounds nice though, don't really understand why people are crying about that.

 

[SlumlordThanatos]

Honestly, I'm kind of baffled as to what kind of person dosen't want a multiplayer mode in a FF:Tactics successor...

Not only is it a natural fit for a game composed primarily of what is already effectively PvP skirmishes against an AI, it also adds nearly infinite replay value.

Hell, for a lot of those people, it was probably the one component missing in the originals.
It was one of the features that had me back the project.

It just doesn't feel right.

It was never a serious feature in any SRPG I've ever played. I remember it the GBA Fire Emblem titles, but it was little more than an afterthought.

I would prefer to see them spend the time and effort they put into mulitplayer towards more polish.

 

[Sylveria]

Right, I'm slightly worried now. I was wondering why I hadn't seen that many updates for it.

PVP sounds nice though, don't really understand why people are crying about that.

They're already openly stating they're out of money, the game is being delayed, and they're talking about introducing online, PVP elements that were not part of the original presentation. In other words, they're putting resources they don't have towards features the people who funded the game don't want. How is this hard to understand?

 

[Cecilo]

Sounds like a diversion to me. "People are just upset over the fact we are adding other features. It's part of our vision for it. No other reasons here!"

 

[Scow2]

It was never a serious feature in any SRPG I've ever played. I remember it the GBA Fire Emblem titles, but it was little more than an afterthought.

But it's a tactics game, though. Tactical games are awesome for PvP.

I would prefer to see them spend the time and effort they put into mulitplayer towards more polish.

Just what the hell is "Polish[/i] anyway, in a game?

 

[Rosiv]

I just want the game not to be broken as the original FFT was. Blade grasp anyone?

Spoiler

 

[Lotet]

I just want the game not to be broken as the original FFT was. Blade grasp anyone?

You know what? I was displeased about them having multiplayer at first. The thought of competing against meticulously crafted teams that have been made for the sole purpose of being as powerful as can be to wreak any other player who hasn't learnt all the best ways to do things sounds very unappealing, like in Pokemon tournaments, you can't win with the team you adventure with.

But remembering that these games tend to have combos and abilities that can make 1 class the best class because it's immensely imbalanced when you unlock all the pieces, well, if they are actually using PvP to determine balance then hopefully there won't be any horrendously overpowered ability combos.

 

[Wiggum Esquilax]

I just want the game not to be broken as the original FFT was. Blade grasp anyone?

Spoiler

Oh God, Blade Grasp. That bug trivialized the entire game.

Or it would have, if not for T.G. Cid already doing so. Or Meliadoul, Beowoulf, and Worker 8. Or Knight Swords.
Or any party comprising a Bard using speed up and a Dancer using speed down. Or a mathematician set to auto-battle alongside a Mime.

...So yeah, broken beyond belief.

If you want something that improved upon FFT, try Tactics Ogre. Better in basically every way.

 

[Lotet]

If you want something that improved upon FFT, try Tactics Ogre. Better in basically every way.

Any particular game you would recommend? How does it improve upon FFT?

 

[RJ 17]

Or it would have, if not for T.G. Cid already doing so. Or Meliadoul, Beowoulf, and Worker 8. Or Knight Swords.
Or any party comprising a Bard using speed up and a Dancer using speed down. Or a mathematician set to auto-battle alongside a Mime.

That's what I was going to point out: FFT, while I still say it's my favorite game that has the words Final Fantasy in the title, was incredibly easy to break in a number of different ways. One of my favorite ways was having a monk with Two Swords and Blade Grasp...just kill the crap out of everything while being nigh indestructible.

Wow...can't say I've ever seen this one....Captcha: "ermahgerd, capcher"

 

[RandV80]

If you want something that improved upon FFT, try Tactics Ogre. Better in basically every way.

Any particular game you would recommend? How does it improve upon FFT?

I have Tactics Ogre for the PS1, after being a huge fan of Ogre Battle on the SNES. I forget exactly what the deal was but technically Tactics Ogre came out first and FF Tactics borrowed heavily from it. It's been forever since I played them but the differences I recall is that TO had a more rigid & less fun class system than FFT, but you went to battle with 12 units instead of six & battle was less forgiving, the story was more brutal and had distinct branching paths.

I don't think there's many different versions... there's the original that came out on the Famicon(?) and PSone, a GBA version that was a bit lighter, and more recently they redid the original with a few gameplay tweaks (ex: you level up unit classes instead of individual characters).

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

though it's still not as much of a clusterfuck development as FFXII was. At least this hasn't caused Matsuno to have a nervous breakdown.

 

[Wiggum Esquilax]

If you want something that improved upon FFT, try Tactics Ogre. Better in basically every way.

Any particular game you would recommend? How does it improve upon FFT?

"Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together" for the PSP.

Tactics Ogre and FFT were originally made by the same people, and only a couple of years apart. Most models of Tactics Ogre haven't actually aged all that well.

Then there's the PSP game. Remade from the ground up, full of modern amenities and rewritten music, it's by far the best version.

Spoiler: Music perfectly depicting an uphill charge against a necromancer.

Relatively well balanced classes. Dramatically branching plotlines. Brilliant translation to English, complete with subtlety and humor. Larger maps with up to 10 characters and 3 guests in a battle party makes combat more tactical IMHO.

Characters don't level up, the classes themselves do. A friendly's corpse can be morbidly and confusingly scavenged of it's skills. Your units have 3 lives. All these combine to make a character's death less of a need to reset the game, lest you suffer grinding again from level 1.

The game actually allows you to rewind a battle by up to 50 moves, again to avoid forcing a reset.

Substantial post-endgame content. Includes both additional stages and the ability to play the branching paths, using both your existing party and anyone you might recruit while exploring these other directions. Makes it so that you don't have to replay the entire game to see all available content.

A few quibbles.

-A lot of abilities tend to be class-specific, limiting customization within your party. Not necessarily a bad thing, this limits min-maxing.
-Casting spells takes several seconds, which some people find to be insufferable. They're slightly more time consuming than most of FFT's magic, but nowhere near what the summons and other big spectacles ask of your patience.
-A significant deal of power creep can be garnered by having the better weapons and armor. Not so different from FFT, mind you.


One big problem though, the crafting.

The crafting system is god-awful, and fortunately unnecessary early on because of the store. Later can be supplemented by stealing, or just recruiting enemies for their equipment before firing them.
Crafting requires that you craft not only finished goods, but often also the component reagents. Combine that with a chance to fail crafting, a chance which compares the power of the crafted item to the party's stats. A single bar of wootz steel has 37 (thirty-seven) steps, each with a chance that may be below 100%!

Despite the crafting (ugh), this is one of the best games I've ever known. Politics, personality, combat, art, and heart, none of them getting in each other's way.

 

[SecondPrize]

Oh boo hoo. They're not taking away from the game - just adding new features. Sounds like the backers are a bunch of crybabys.

But at the same time is " was being delayed to late 2016 because of a "financial crunch" resulting in layoffs". It's not an irrational stance for backers to go "well maybe you would have better finances if you stopped wasting our money on developing features we never wanted".

It kind of is if that stance comes from a belief that they have any rights whatsoever to dictate development. What they did or didn't ever want has no bearing on what gets made.