Is "Kickstarter" becoming "Rebooter"?

[Monsterfurby]

Kickstarter is a great platform for projects that bear a certain creative risk. For original minds who want to get immediate feedback on whether their idea will fly, and fund it in the process. It's a good thing, but there it something irking me about its use by big-name developers recently.

Don't get me wrong - I see no problem with the likes of Chris Roberts or Peter Molyneux (or even the Elite guy) going on Kickstarter to fund their projects - but looking at those, I can't help but feel that Kickstarter here is not being used as a platform to spread creative risk - i.e. risk that stems from uncertainty over whether the content of the game will be accepted - but entrepreneurial risk - i.e. risk that results in no one being willing to put up the money for it.

These projects are more often than not "remakes" (at least in spirit) of past successful games, essentially bringing nothing new to the table but only resting on laurels from years past.

Elite: Dangerous and Godus may be the worst offenders, as Star Citizen and Project Eternity do to some degree innovate by themselves. But there are many others out there. Fact is though: Many game remakes that are now found on Kickstarter have previously been extremely unsuccessful in gaining new attention after their original run.

I personally do not think that this will be a beneficial direction, as expectations raised this way may end up in lofty heights that a finished product may never reach. What do you think?

 

[veloper]

The reboot is true, but is it a bad thing that oldskool audiences can now fund the type of games they want to play?

Those games haven't become less popular over time so much as the other game genres found new different audiences that are much bigger than the existing, nerdy crowd.
If the expectations of some are unrealistic, then sucks for them simple as that.

I'm prepared for half of the games I funded to disappoint even so, but that doesn't disprove the idea behind crowdfunding.

 

[Fat Hippo]

Yep, that Florence guy makes a pretty convincing argument. My dislike for Molyneux has only grown, though at this point, anyone who gives Molyneux money for a bunch of promises kinda deserves whatever they get.

I'm definitely not surprised that many of the biggest projects come from something people already know and love. It's a lot harder to get people to give money for something totally new, which they might not even enjoy. If you like adventure games, and Double-Fine does a good job, you KNOW you're getting something you'll enjoy. Whereas if you back something that might be considered a new genre, you have no idea wether you'll even like that game, no matter the quality of the work.

Kickstarters are inherently risky, and creating games within tightly established genres, by people who have proven their proficiency, is the best way to minimize that risk. So if we're gonna find innovation, it'll probably be in the REALLY small games, like FTL, which don't need a lot of money to be successful, even if they do occasionally receive it. And not the ones that ask for a million bucks right out the gate, because the chance of an unproven concept collecting all that cash is extremely unlikely. I mean, would YOU give money for something just because it sounds cool? I know I wouldn't.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Yes, I've also noticed the Kickstarter trend of "Hey, remember that old school you loved? We're essentially gonna make it again!"

Now, if that happens to result in good games (which is still largely unknown), then that's great. It's not really the Kickstarter-fueled Gaming Renaissance some where hoping for, but we're getting enjoyable experiences out of it.

But I still kinda worry that there are ambitious, genuinely innovative projects out there that are being overlooked because the Gianna Sisters or something are taking up all the spotlight.

Captcha: age before beauty
Hmmm ... interesting

 

[Hargrimm]

People support those projects, because they know that the people behind them have done good stuff in the past.
That's about as safe an investment you can make with Kickstarter.

On that whole innovation schtick:
I don't know what places you frequent, but in those that I do "innovation" along with "streamlining" has become somewhat of a dirty word, more associated with marketing drivel than quality. They usually want existing mechanics to be improved upon and expanded.
I'd really like to see some examples of these supposed "crying for innovation while whining about no innovation" guys.

Also, with the decline in the AAA industry, many mechanics and concepts have simply been swept under the rug. While not really "innovation" in the literal sense, these are so uncommon that reintroducing them enriches the industry as a whole.

Let's also not forget that innovation doesn't automatically mean good. Just because something hasn't been done before, doesn't mean that it's a good idea. In fact, maybe it hasn't been done before because it is a *bad* idea?

For example: The universal ammo in DX: invisible war. A newish idea yes, but I have no idea what that was even supposed to accomplish, except make a majority of your arsenal completely useless because of simple damage per ammo arithmetic.

Or morality meters. In KOTOR it kind of made sense, because of the dark side/light side in the setting.
But in Fable? Or Infamous? Or Bioshock? All it does is boil down complex questions to a binary, absolutist choice.(do you want to be good or evil?)
In ME and Jade Empire they at least tried to explain it away as different approaches to a problem and philosophies. But it still judges your actions by only two, regardless of whether or not they are actually in tune with your actual reasoning.
It imposes the designers views on the player, judges him according to those and creates false dichotomies.

 

[Pink Gregory]

It has made me rethink peoples position innovation quite at lot that people dont really want innovation, they just want their personal favourite stagnation.

I agree; I'll admit that it's overall positive that the community can have some input into crowdfunded projects, but the things we're seeing rebooted have been essentially dead for so long that each gamer has created an idea of exactly what they want it to be, and if it isn't, the rage will be massive, especially considering that they contributed to its development.

Basically, it becomes "MAKE IT WHAT IT IS IN MY HEAD" for each individual.

I've seen people get perhaps a little attracted to names as well, the No True Scotsman gets thrown around a lot, nut as long as the game remains the vision of its creator, then I'm sure it'll be swell.

Actually, maybe in your statement I'd switch 'innovation' with 'change of any sort'. But really, as is typical, the people who complain/send death threats to developers etc are in the minority. It's just the internet distributes those with the loudest voices.