Jon Shafer's At The Gates

Games
41

I understand where wiglaf is coming from. I’ve followed games for a long time now and the finished products rarely meet the expectations raised (aroused?) when we read about them as previews.

Kickstarter is sort of like reading a preview about some awesome-sounding game and then seeing a note at the end of the preview that says, “Hey, we can’t actually make this game you just read about unless you give us some money right now.”

However, it’s all above-board so I can’t fault anyone for contributing. We’re adults. We understand the risks. It’s fun to dream and hope and support developers we feel can benefit from our support to do something they might not otherwise be able to do.

42

I have always been amazed that people who will not pre-order games, turn around and contribute to a kickstarter (often paying more than they would on release!). If a game company has a good idea, it should not need me to fund its development. Pure and simple. I’m not an expert and I do not know the real qualifications of Schafer’s team. If I were an investor, I wouldn’t contribute to his project without knowing a lot, lot more about him and seeing a playable build of the game.

43

I think the plan is to replicate Bruce Geryk’s brain patterns and use that as a base for the enemy AI. That should compensate for any possible shortcomings found in previous 4x games.

44

Investors are looking for blockbusters, not mid-market games with small budgets and a modest appeal.

45

That is simply very inaccurate. Very few investors focus only on blockbusters, which makes sense because otherwise they’d go out of business.

46

What are you even talking about? Who are these investors who are interested in funding niche PC games? Not publishers, obviously. You really think you can get a VC interested in something like this?

47

What world are you living in?

48

So where was all the investment in space games over the last decade? Oh, yeah, right, you loco.

49

Publishers/studios (even ones who work on niche games like Paradox) and in some cases developers routinely receive a significant amount of money from investors who do not expect each product to be a massive major blockbuster Call of Duty. That’s just reality, whether you’re talking about the game industry, film industry, etc. I have no idea where people get this conception that investors only want sure bets that sell a million copies and end up cross-promoted with Mountain Dew.

You are apparently telling me Jon can’t find an investor or publisher because his game, though very high quality, has a subject matter/ appeal that is too narrow for commoners. Really? Civilization 5/Crusader Kings proved there’s a market for turn based strategy. Minecraft proved not everyone cares about graphics. So what’s stopping a publisher from handing Jon a $60,000 check and demanding 9% at the end of the day?

Oh, that’s right. There’s no game at all here. There’s poor generic graphics, limited promise of innovation and a bizarre pitch video. That stops publishers and investors. Why doesn’t it stop you?

50

Good luck with the Kickstarter, looks really neat!

51

Jon, I’ve been a TBS fan and a Civ fan since I built my first AEGIS cruiser in Civ 2. Civ 4 was great, but I couldn’t get into Civ 5. Could you maybe pitch to someone like me, who is predisposed to like everything about this project except for the thought of Civ 5’s DNA informing this new game?

52

Wiglaf, you’re carrying the fight a bit too far. You made some valid points about the risks of backing a KS project, but if people want to back them you shouldn’t find it offensive. People have equally valid reasons for backing them, the foremost being it’s their money.

I am happy to see people back KS projects. It makes it more likely that the games will be made, and if they are that means I will have an opportunity to buy them and play them someday. I reserve the right to be skeptical but I am glad there are others who view these projects with optimism.

With this particular project all my pledge would get me is a $5 discount for giving them the money a year in advance. That’s not enough so I’ll sit it out and wait to see how the game is received. If it’s awesome they’ll get my $30. Probably. If it gets a mixed reception I’ll wait for a sale and get it cheaper.

53

I’m probably one of the folks that hated Civ5 the most, but can we keep the Civ5 hate (or love) out of this thread and focus on the game at hand?

I mean, if AtG deserves flak, this will be the thread to pile it on in, but that’ll be a while.

That said, the 3MA podcast did shed some more light on what puts me in a group less likely to be fond of a Jon Shafer game.
He goes great lengths to praise the simple (and in his mind more advanced) design of board games. Game mechanics are kept to a minimum, decisions have to have profound impact, otherwise they are not worth making etc.

My position here is that … for example, I’ve never played a tabletop wargame and I almost fell into despair over constant rule bickering in P&P RPGs, so I do appreciate me simple rules in a boardgame, but I think the main reason for this design philosophy is that humans need to be able to keep track of the rules (which is often a problem in war and P&P RP games), NOT that having less mechanics and less interwining systems is somehow inherently superior.
If you want to design a boardgame, fine, just make it a boardgame, possibly with a version on computers, but compromising the design of other games/genres with these ideas is not very gentlemanlike.

One example of this boardgamish mechanic I could potentially see “fail” in a computer game is the idea represented by the diminishing resources in AtG.
It’s just an artificial, highly unrealistic (in the context chosen) mechanic.
Whether or not it works well in a game like this anyway we’ll only see if AtG got made and is out, I guess.

rezaf

54

I don’t know why anyone would complain about wiglaf - he’s just trying to save all you morons from yourselves by telling you how to spend your money. I wish someone like him had been around when my wife and I decided it’d be a good idea to have a child.

Re: simpler mechanics: this seems to come up on 3MA fairly often (the Battle of the Bulge episode was the most recent that I can remember spending a decent amount of time on the subject). Most of the panelists seem to be of the opinion that adding complexity because you can is generally a bad design decision, and software developers seem to feel that they need to add layer after layer of complexity because the computer can handle all the rules and computations.

55

Why did Civ 4 have big AI problems until an expansion or two in?

56

Most investors are going to want the most bang for their buck.

I think Kickstarter is a great avenue to fund games or projects that might not otherwise get a chance. There are, of course risks. I think everyone here is aware of those risks…

57

I don’t know why anyone would complain about wiglaf - he’s just trying to save all you morons from yourselves by telling you how to spend your money. I wish someone like him had been around when my wife and I decided it’d be a good idea to have a child.

Re: simpler mechanics: this seems to come up on 3MA fairly often (the Battle of the Bulge episode was the most recent that I can remember spending a decent amount of time on the subject). Most of the panelists seem to be of the opinion that adding complexity because you can is generally a bad design decision, and software developers seem to feel that they need to add layer after layer of complexity because the computer can handle all the rules and computations.

The argument isn’t that you should add complexity for no reason. It’s that stripping away complexity and forcing boardgame-style rules can be disastrous for a PC game. See: Civ 5, where the hex-game ruleset crippled the AI. And the simplified happiness mechanic…ugh.

Why did Civ 4 have big AI problems until an expansion or two in?

Bad coding? Nothing the community AI patch by Blake couldn’t help smooth over. Make no mistake: Civ 4’s fully patched/expanded AI is still no match for a high-skill player, but it’s leagues ahead of Civ 5. Also, some of Civ 5’s other board-game style mechanics hurt the game itself, even in multiplayer, namely the simplification of happiness and resources.

58

I think adding ‘Morale’ and ‘Provisions’ to each unit is a nice addition to units.

To me personally Civ 5 is a winning formula. The same type of game play can be found in Warlock which is also awesome.

You don’t need to add a ton of new things, just some new twists and I’ll be right there playing that game. I even bought all the DLC for Warlock and I loved every minute of it. Each little piece of DLC added a new twist to the base experience that got me to play the game again. I want to play At the Gates now because I can see some new ideas added to the formula I already love.

59

I’m often wondering if all the people that like to get down on a Kickstarter project are involved in the mainstream publishing business themselves?

I really don’t get how any of todays games customers and PC game fans could get their noses out of joint over any but the most obvious cash-grab KS pitches (and we haven’t seen many of those)? Crowd-funding is allowing games to get made that wouldn’t otherwise, and yes there will be times it doesn’t work out, but the chance of it working out is what you are funding.

I don’t see backing things on kickstarter as any more risky than buying a modern game at retail from a AAA publisher that despite all the glowing reviews in the (paid for) mainstream game media, i know has a 60-80% of leaving me feel like i’ve wasted my time and money once i got it home and given it a go. In fact that is the most common feeling i’ve been getting from the mainstream for a good many years, rare are the games that keep my interest for longer than a weekends gaming. Crowd-funding offers me a way out of that trap, as do Indies etc.

As for this particular game, I didn’t like Civ V much (played it at a buddies), compared to where Civ IV had taken that series after the BTS expansion in particular. Civ V just felt ‘lite’ and streamlined to the extent it felt ‘less’ of a game with ‘less’ interesting decisions, there was simply less to it overall, and the AI had a really hard time with the new combat system.

So on that score i can see where some of the criticisms may be coming from. However At the Gates looks a much more simple game than Civ in general, seeing the gameplay video and the KS descriptions i get a strong ‘Battle of Wesnoth’ vibe, but this game is about the grand strategy rather than the tactical combat.

How complex an AI do you need for this type of game? I don’t see anything in the game design aspects that are crying out for anything more complex than the standard strategy level of AI? So i’m going to assume it should not be that big an issue (AI programmers step in and correct me!)?

The key interest in the game is the setting and the dynamic world map along with things like supply etc. Those all seem solid design aspects that can be done well enough to add something to the game to make it worth the £20 entry fee imho. And let’s not forget it’s a 4x strategy game, we’re not exactly drowning in those, so cut the three guys on a sofa some slack and wish them well. Your even helping to feed some cute animals, this is the way that games should be being made.

At least your money isn’t getting wasted on some ‘know nothing’ sociopath in a massive AAA publisher that needs to blow money on coke and hookers and fast cars to feel important and relevant?

60

Wow add me to the group that disagrees with wiglaf. In every way I find civ v a superior game to 4. Even tha ai. I will take a semi-competent ai playing a strategy game I enjoy over a competent ai that pushes stacks o doom around the map.