Hmmm… stretch goal maybe?
Thanks Dan! Unfortunately, you’re not allowed to edit your own Wikipedia page, but I wouldn’t steer anyone else away from doing so. ;)
- Jon
It’s the first kickstarter I’ve backed. The changing world and the ability to move your empire around look really cool.
I’ll try updating it tonight if nobody else has gotten to it, yet.
This is pre podcast for me but what is going through my head is Great Invasions. It was a cool idea but the game fell apart in a big ridden mess with clunky UI. To see something similar carried out well would be welcome. I’ll see what comes up in the podcast…
Tom M
Any chance for a PBEM option
?
It you want board game inspiration you may look hard at Catan Histories: Struggle for Rome, which adds some interesting dynamics to the concept of a barbarian invasion.
Good call on Struggle for Rome. It is a good raiding game layered on the familiar Catan boardgame. Trails to Rails is another good derivative for people tired of ‘vanilla’ Catan.
Back to the Gates. Sounds really promising, the shifting map does sound like it will keep the game fresh. And, really worrying about your resources RTS style will force some interesting choices you don’t often see in a TBS. There are a few exceptions Stars! had a neat finite resource mechanic. That game even took it a step forward and had the amount of resource broken down by whether it was easy to get at, sitting around on the surface, or requires more in depth mining.
What we have here are some mechanics I like wrapped into a theme I like so hopefully there are enough of me around to make this thing happen.
Tom M
After watching that video all I can say is “Let’s do it for Jon-y!”.
Sounds interesting anyway.
At the Gates innovates on the diplomatic front as well. Relationships are cultivated by completing situational requests for other leaders, giving you the ability to dramatically reshape the political landscape. If Attila’s people are starving, then providing him with a timely gift of food could very well earn you a friend for life. The tools for forging powerful alliances are always right at your fingertips.
Not to interrupt the love fest but how is this innovation?
I guess I’m just very confused at the whole Kickstarter generally. You have a pitch video that even sounds kind of desperate at times (“At the Gates will be a great game … if it gets made”), very much outrageous reward tiers and a lot of lofty promises.
The biggest is the promise of a functioning AI. The guy in the video attempts to put these concerns to rest with a quick, “Oh, don’t worry that there’s only two programmers. We can get away with it because the same people doing creative decisions are doing the programming.” Wait, what? I’ve seen kickstarters do this song and dance before (Xenonauts being the most famous). You of all people should know from the botched Civ 5 that AI can make or break a game. Why will this game be any better on that front, given that it’s apparently being made by three people on a couch? At least Xenonauts had a demo…
Do you think you can win me over just by making a game in my favorite genre set during a fascinating, underrepresented historical era?
…
…
…let me get my wallet.
One of these days, people will realize Kickstarter sells dreams, not products.
A little harsh maybe. But, yes we should be cautious. Personally I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt, let’s see how the game develops.
When Bomber Command came out, I listened to a podcast that had a former member talk about how the bomber crews got to essentially sort themselves out while milling around in a hanger. There was a pilot who had been in a crash and was assembling a new crew. Some airmen had heard about this and asked to join his crew.
“You know I’ve been in a crash before, right? Are you sure?”
“We think you’ll be more carefull this time.”
Tom M
My copy of FTL dreams in color.
I’m not saying this is necessarily doomed. I am pointing out that everyone here lost objectivity on this a long time ago. Given that no one really liked Civ 5, due largely to design decisions, why is this generating excitement simply because of Jon’s name? No demo, no gameplay. Just Jon’s name and some claims of “innovation” that don’t survive a cursory glance.
It’s funny you should mention FTL, though, because it’s far, far less ambitious than this game. It had no real AI and was essentially a roguelike that relied more on randomness than anything. Wasn’t there also at least a press demo and downloadable closed beta of FTL at kickstarter time? http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/64409699/ftl-faster-than-light
Oh absolutely, I think everyone understands that. It’s just such a trivial gamble though… what’s thirty or forty dollars for the game of your dreams?
Good luck Jon!
You’ve got my money. I love the period and I can’t wait to see what you do with it.
Yes, yes, it’s a good thing we have you realists around to pull our heads out of the clouds.
Part of the problem with PC game journalists is they become friendly with developers, then write them good reviews to keep on those good terms. A similar problem exists in communities like this, which appear content to throw money at a friendly developer blindly. I think there are interesting, probably insurmountable challenges facing this project that for some reason aren’t even being mentioned.
I think we’re all aware of what can go wrong. Half the people here are developers, the other half are fairly informed consumers.
Anyone else here buy Outpost? Did anyone play Descent Undermountain?
I still like my kickstarter dollars to dream.
Jon is someone I can get behind, and it seems to me someone with his experience and depth of knowledge let loose to create his game can potentially turn out something grand.
Look on this list and tell me what number Civ 5 is listed at.
Yah, I think it’s safe to say some people really like Civ 5.
I think there’s plenty of us, me included, who loved Civ 5 and became fans of Jon’s because of it.
Jon is someone I can get behind, and it seems to me someone with his experience and depth of knowledge let loose to create his game can potentially turn out something grand.
I guess it could. I don’t see much sign of that from either his past work or the Kickstarter page – not nearly enough to justify $30, anyway. I think it’s too bad because he could use constructive criticism. That pitch video is weak, and the game’s innovations and features look generic.
Look on this list and tell me what number Civ 5 is listed at.
Yah, I think it’s safe to say some people really like Civ 5.
I think there’s plenty of us, me included, who loved Civ 5 and became fans of Jon’s because of it.
There is something very addicting about the fundamental civilization formula, obviously. Shafer’s additions to the formula resulted in an AI that couldn’t play the game (either at the diplomatic or combat levels). The multiplayer community abandoned it not just because of buggy net code but also its fundamental reversal of key game mechanics. In other words, Civ was successful in part because of the franchise’s legacy, and in part because people apparently do not notice or care much about nonfunctional AI.
If you dispute Civ 5 had big AI problems because of its design, you are very simply wrong. If you don’t want to know what At the Gates is doing at the design level to rectify this problem but are willing to blow $30 on it, you are being silly.
Also, unrelated kind of, but wow, look at this: http://www.globalcollegeblog.com/why-civilization-5-is-so-addicting.html