Biggest Kickstarter bullshit - strech goals, so far.

[KazeAizen]

Did you notice both acronyms for Kickstarter and bullshit (KS & BS) differ in one letter? Here goes...

You will lose a lot of people's interest with this arguement. 50% of the letters are different. That is a stretch. I feel for you though. I am the worst guy ever at using metaphors to illustrate my point. But I won't stop doing it for some reason. I'm the monkey in a bathtub... Wait. Stop it.

Let's talk stretch goals and other issues of KS.

Well, let's look at it from the flip side. Suppose you had a kickstarter project to make a game. Your deliverable is an electronic copy of the game (plus some other t-shirts and autographed bullshit). This electronic download is a minimal cost item--no shipping, tiny management costs to set up the download, no real overhead. Something goes entirely right and you get a ton of people backing you for the game. You make 100% more than you expected. But you had a very specific plan for the game scope. What do you do? Your sponsors only expected a certain level of game when they donated, but they will think you are a greedy bastard if you just pocket all of that extra cash.

I think that the stretch goals may not always be the wisest selections. I think they are a way for the KS project managers to kind of cover their asses against bad feedback from their backers. Are achievements bullshit? Yeah. But people do enjoy them.

I wouldn't necessarily say achievements are bullshit. Nintendo is really the only system that has yet to adopt an achievement or trophy system for its console. Any games on it that have said achievements are usually in game and they usually hide unlockables i.e. Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Kirby Air Ride. The problem with achievements is that the Xbox and PS3 abused the system and made these really stupid "complete the game" achievements. Which means no matter what when you finish the game you will have a handful of achievements or trophies.

Good achievements and trophies are those that challenge you with a new set of rules for a given scenario. i.e. one in Halo 3 might be. Complete X course with only human weapons with that particular level being unusually short of human weapons and full of covenant weapons. Thus the achievement could read "True Human Hero" or something. In the end the trophies and achievements will always be a dick measuring contest but gamers love competition to a degree and if you and a friend have the same game there's a little healthy competition right there. Its not so much that achievements are bullshit but rather that Sony and Microsoft ran them straight into the ground before they even had enough runway to take off.

 

[Clankenbeard]

Did you notice both acronyms for Kickstarter and bullshit (KS & BS) differ in one letter? Here goes...

You will lose a lot of people's interest with this arguement. 50% of the letters are different. That is a stretch. I feel for you though. I am the worst guy ever at using metaphors to illustrate my point. But I won't stop doing it for some reason. I'm the monkey in a bathtub... Wait. Stop it.

Let's talk stretch goals and other issues of KS.

Well, let's look at it from the flip side. Suppose you had a kickstarter project to make a game. Your deliverable is an electronic copy of the game (plus some other t-shirts and autographed bullshit). This electronic download is a minimal cost item--no shipping, tiny management costs to set up the download, no real overhead. Something goes entirely right and you get a ton of people backing you for the game. You make 100% more than you expected. But you had a very specific plan for the game scope. What do you do? Your sponsors only expected a certain level of game when they donated, but they will think you are a greedy bastard if you just pocket all of that extra cash.

I think that the stretch goals may not always be the wisest selections. I think they are a way for the KS project managers to kind of cover their asses against bad feedback from their backers. Are achievements bullshit? Yeah. But people do enjoy them.

I wouldn't necessarily say achievements are bullshit. Nintendo is really the only system that has yet to adopt an achievement or trophy system for its console. Any games on it that have said achievements are usually in game and they usually hide unlockables i.e. Super Smash Bros. Brawl and Kirby Air Ride. The problem with achievements is that the Xbox and PS3 abused the system and made these really stupid "complete the game" achievements. Which means no matter what when you finish the game you will have a handful of achievements or trophies.

Good achievements and trophies are those that challenge you with a new set of rules for a given scenario. i.e. one in Halo 3 might be. Complete X course with only human weapons with that particular level being unusually short of human weapons and full of covenant weapons. Thus the achievement could read "True Human Hero" or something. In the end the trophies and achievements will always be a dick measuring contest but gamers love competition to a degree and if you and a friend have the same game there's a little healthy competition right there. Its not so much that achievements are bullshit but rather that Sony and Microsoft ran them straight into the ground before they even had enough runway to take off.

Your arguement is solid. "Bullshit" as used by me was too strong a word. I find the achievement system to be unnecessary (hence the "bullshit"), but fun regardless. I'm solely a PC gamer, so I honestly don't know how much achievements influence the console folks. Achievments like the one you mention can add an extra twist to gameplay, which I have certainly enjoyed. Rather than you and your buddy deciding "let's play this level with only shotguns", the game creators have done the same thing and set up a reward for you to do so. This really only adds to the game experience and may inspire you to do something that you otherwise might not have even thought of. Plus it keeps you honest as to whether or not you actually pulled it off.

Summing Up:
Do you need achievements in a game to enjoy/finish it? No.
Can achievements improve the play/replay value of the game? Yes.
Are achievements bullshit? No.

 

[KazeAizen]

Your arguement is solid. "Bullshit" as used by me was too strong a word. I find the achievement system to be unnecessary (hence the "bullshit"), but fun regardless. I'm solely a PC gamer, so I honestly don't know how much achievements influence the console folks. Achievments like the one you mention can add an extra twist to gameplay, which I have certainly enjoyed. Rather than you and your buddy deciding "let's play this level with only shotguns", the game creators have done the same thing and set up a reward for you to do so. This really only adds to the game experience and may inspire you to do something that you otherwise might not have even thought of. Plus it keeps you honest as to whether or not you actually pulled it off.

Summing Up:
Do you need achievements in a game to enjoy/finish it? No.
Can achievements improve the play/replay value of the game? Yes.
Are achievements bullshit? No.

The achievement system really is unnecessary. I am just sad that Microsoft and Sony adopted a system but then no one really did anything cool with it. Achievements more or less affect the Xbox folks more then Playstation folks. I've found they are more numerous. However they have an arbitrary number that is added to them that give you a "gamer score" or something like that. Sony just uses bronze, silver, and gold system which I find simpler and easier. People actually do use it as a dick measuring contest. I've only seen one case where you are rewarded for getting an achievements in a game. I think if you get and X gamer score from Halo 3 achievements you get a Katana on your back or so I was told. Its the only game I heard of that used those to actually unlock something. I delve in all realms of gaming so I know where you are coming from saying they are unnecessary.

 

[briankoontz]

My problem with stretch goals is that the artistic quality of the project is compromised before the game is ever developed.

Consider if Michaelangelo used Kickstarter to paint the Sistine Chapel. A stretch goal might be The Creation of Adam, the existence of which would depend on the funding. But the scene itself is integral to the work as a whole, so how can the artist be expected to envision the project in different states of fulfillment?

What about the Mona Lisa, which would have everything but the smile if that stretch goal couldn't be reached.

The counter argument might be that the artistic core of the game is found in the base project, and the stretch goals don't have much artistic impact. This starts to get very dangerous, however - while the smile of Mona Lisa might be the most important part the hair is also considered part of the art, not just an extra add-on.

Serious artists on Kickstarter need to envision the game they want to make, and make sure that any "stretch goals" they include are truly extras.