| Ron Dippold |
|
|
Well honestly, it doesn't /sound/ like much fun. Which does go towards his 'this is something which should be done', but I think it's always been about Kickstarting things you can get excited about.
'The player sets tax rates on five kinds of pollution, and sets subsidies for five kinds of beneficial activities. ... The game is only one turn long: you set your taxes and subsidies and then turn the simulation loose to calculate the effects of your policies over the course of the next 60 years. It then presents you with your score, which will usually be negative.' How many people are going to pay for that? Who's going to get fired up about that? I pledged $25, but only because I played Siboot and Balance of Power back in the day and know who Chris is. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Joe Wreschnig |
|
It's a simulation... where you can't interact!
I think it says more about the community that we can't tell an experimental designer from a reactionary crank. I'm still not sure which Chris Crawford is, but this rant (and the funding goal!) certainly moves the needle towards the latter. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Brian Linville |
|
It sounds like a "How to wreck the economy even more," game. When your target market exists of only Al Gore, you should probably rethink your game model.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Maria Jayne |
|
|
As a professional idiot, I see several issues with your pitch.
First, If I knew who you were, knowing you've done stuff would not change my opinion of you, since I don't know who you are, spending most of your video trying to convince me I should care about who you are, rather then what you are doing, I see as a negative. Your early game build doesn't work for me, the pages were broken in internet explorer. So again, a negative there when you provide no alternative visual examples. On it's own, not the end of the world, when it's your only source, it's not good. As you rightly realise, telling potential backers you want to give your game away for free, and then asking for money? Oh you want $150,000 so OTHER people can get it for free, well i may aswell wait and be one of those people. Chicken and Egg scenario. Lastly, it doesn't sound much like a game, it sounds like an educational tool, we all love playing those right? There are definitely a lot of gamers that see beta as a free trial of a game and don't appreciate what it should mean, that is the fault of many a publisher cashing in on it as a marketing tool. However, there are a significant number of gamers that definitely can see a diamond in the rough, evidence of this would be Alpha Minecraft or the Day Z mod, the former looks like crap and the latter is buggy and near broken. Unyet hundreds of thousands of players persist in playing them anyway. I think It would be better pitched to an education authority for funding, stop trying to sell it as something for fun or recreation and start trying to sell it as a means to teach in schools or colleges. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| James Hofmann |
|
|
I think Chris has always had some great ideas, but he benefits from taking more outside direction. His games have always tended towards a very "unbalanced" mix - simulation taking precedence over everything else. Simulation alone only makes for a marketable product if the audience is already motivated to play with it, though. The hooks come from other angles.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Adriaan Jansen |
|
|
Regardless of the issue if it really feels like a game or not, I didn't back the project not because I don't like the subject or the type of game (like Fate of the World), but because the pitch simply lacked in bringing the vision he had in mind. Aside from theme of the model, I had no idea about how it would look, how it would play, and how I would learn. The prototype seems like a good way to communicate the vision, but it was setting 10 sliders and reading numbers. That makes me less exciting then a pretty picture with the text: "You decide policies, and watch the planet evolve!" I crave for visual stimulation!
The playable prototype was actually hurting the pitch, maybe because it felt so complete... It seemed like the message was: "Yeah this is the game, I just need to tweak some numbers and it's complete." If the prototype had more stub-like feeling (like a 10 seconds visual simulation of stick figures dying of famine or doing some war over the planet, with the text "insert awesome visual simulation here"), I would probably be way more interested (if that is what you're trying to make). |
|
|
| Henrik Namark |
|
|
Wow, that presentation might be the worst I've ever seen. His conclusions might work on some games but I don't think that was the main reason this time. Also, where does the money go? Is it his salary or something else?
|
|
|
| Christopher Hallett |
|
That was the worst pitch I have ever seen. Spending the first 1/4 of the video gloating about your previous games from a long gone era and then spending the rest of the video throwing in strange humour with no game play examples is just asking for trouble. The idea is a solid one but he went about it in the complete wrong way.
Funding Price was too high Pitch was poorly delivered Reasons for funding were weak Incentives to back were weak |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Mike Jenkins |
|
""What's going on now, which I did not comprehend at the time, is that Kickstarter is a marketing channel [for games], so instead of buying a game after it's made, people just pay for a game before it's made. "
I always feel bad about Chris Crawford for the whole GDC thing, but here he could not be more wrong. This is extreme denial, blaming everyone but himself. The proof is here: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1675907842/pathfinder-online-technology-demo |
|
|
| Jonathan Osborne |
|
|
This game already exists: Fate of the World.
Only that one had a lot of interaction over a long time. |
|
|
| Nathan Baughman |
|
|
This article is excellent for indie game devs contemplating whether/how to do a Kickstarter campaign. Mine is already live, and has some similarities, but I think I've done a few things "right" (based on this article's opinion). I only need a humble $4,000, it's about building the player community (not all about me), I already have a fun/fully-playable/non-buggy game, the game has traditional/familiar RPG elements.
However, it's a new kind of player-created content world with unique gameplay. I wouldn't call it experimental, but it is not "just another RPG." Please, please, please tell me my pitch comes across better than Chris Crawford's (with all due respect): http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1391235405/island-forge-establishing-a-creat ive-player-commun |
|
|
| Robert Schmidt |
|
"showing the game too early just put another nail in his Kickstarter's coffin" it's sadly true. People have no imagination. I often give iteration reviews to my clients, showing where the app is in the dev process. With pieces that are partially complete I will start by saying, we are still in development so please disregard any bugs or performance problems. After the demo the customer will complain about the bugs and performance. I've even had users try to delay the current iteration until bugs in the preview for the next iteration are fixed. So my advice is, if you can avoid it, do not show buggy, incomplete code; only demo polished completed iterations. As a developer when we solve a problem with some proof-of-concept code we think, cool! and want to show it off like a kid with a finger painting. We don't understand that the end user doesn't understand the problem we solved, what they see is that for some reason the interface is going to be a command line that spews out lots of numbers, and they don't want that.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Marc Cram |
|
I think I am probably the only person who has played a Chris Crawford game .. two actually - Paton Strikes Back and Balance of Power. Both were interesting but not very fun .. or good. I remember at the 90 or 91 Game Developer's Conference, Chris Crawford and Chris Roberts (Wing Commander) had a debate on what makes a good game. Roberts won ... Having said that .. Crawford was always an entertaining person at the early GDC's and has been dedicated to bringing the developer community together ..
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Mac Senour |
|
|
Maybe I'm the only one that does this, but I also look at the number of projects backed, zero. That and the high amount make me think "money grab", more than passion for the project.
Marc, I assume you're kidding about being the only person who has played a Cris Crawford game. Sheesh. |
|
|
| Matt Diamond |
|
Anyone who thinks Crawford of all people is after a money grab is sorely mistaken. He has dedicated large amounts of his time and energy trying to expand computer games beyond their current narrow focus. If anything, he's an academic.
I also think that requiring someone to back other kickstarters is completely beside the point. What does it prove, other than the fact that they are spending their time on something other than the project they desperately want to fund? And someone earlier complained that Chris's main point was that Kickstarter "used to be good". He explicitly avoids passing judgement on Kickstarter. There are plenty of reasons the Kickstarter didn't do well, and Chris is not shy about blaming himself for much of it. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Chris Crawford |
|
I'd like to thank Tom Curtis for publishing this article; it triggered a number of contributions to the project. Those of you who have criticisms might want to look at an evaluation I just posted of the role that critics played in Balance of the Planet. Some of the criticisms were constructive and led to major changes in the design; some were negative and are answered as well. Here's the URL:
http://www.erasmatazz.com/TheLibrary/GameDesign/DesignDiaryBotP/August24/August2 4th.html |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Jacob Germany |
|
I have two problems with the idea, personally.
It doesn't sound like very much fun to anyone but hard-core simulation lovers. I think I personally might like to play around with something that was a "one-turn" simulation, but it's certainly not going to have a wide player-base. And second, how educational can something be about the environment when you can dial it up or down based on your political bent? If I wanted an educational environment simulation, I'd want the numbers to be as based on hard fact and statistics as possible, rather than providing a "reasonable grey area" that players can simply dial up one way or another to advance their own agenda to whomever is playing. Sure, there are some areas that have true uncertainty, but that's not how the video made it sound. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Jeremy Reaban |
|
Well, David Crane, who made Pitfall! and A Boy and His Blob is having even worse luck on his Kickstarter, Only 20k out of 900k
|
|
|
| james sadler |
|
|
Maybe posting the game in the Video Game section was a wrong idea. Putting it in the Design section may have worked better and received a better audience. I think most people fail at Kickstarter, and other funding avenues because they just don't understand or take the time to research who they're pitching to. If one knows that other games being funded are of a certain type and do this or that, and their own product doesn't, why would one think that audience would want said product, especially when other products that don't follow "the norm" fail. Should have been a pretty big hint right there. The sad thing is that it seems Chris did understand this to an extent and still tried to put it out there. If one understands the market and the high likelihood of failure but still persists, why do we allow them the space to whine about that failure.
|
|
|
| Chris Crawford |
|
I have put together a preliminary and unfinished mockup of the image I mentioned in my 2:32 PM post. You can see it at:
http://www.erasmatazz.com/Diagram1.png Make sure that you look at it at full size, which is huge. Basically, the connections between factors represent the causal effects. I drew most of them 10 px wide to guarantee that they would all fit in the final version. The basic idea is demonstrated in the connections from the various energy sources to the total energy supply: each arrow is drawn in a width proportional to its actual contribution. You can immediately see that coal, oil, and natural gas dominate the mix, and that solar and wind still make up a tiny percentage. This display would show you the situation at any break between turns; I could possibly set up an animation showing it changing with time, but that just pushes the delivery date back. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Aaron Fowler |
|
He should have just pitched it to Al Gore. He probably would have funded the entire $150,000.
|
|
|
| Mark Venturelli |
|
|
So his thoughts on why his project wasn't successful were "kickstarter is commercial now" and "people don't know how to look through rough edges"? No self-criticism whatsoever.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Ben Taber |
|
|
Hmm. My perception of this situation is that Chris Crawford isn't making the games he wants to play, he's making the games he wants other people to play. This approach to design really hampers one's ability to assess the accessibility of one's work, I think. It's all about communication, and to sneer at aesthetically pleasing visual feedback devices seems, as an approach to educational software, fundamentally disconnected with the way that human beings actually learn.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Steve Fulton |
|
|
Someone above said something like "no one here has ever played a Chris Crawford game" (I can't find the comment now). I would like to say that I have played several of Crawford's games over the years, and I've always found them enjoyable, or at the very least, interesting. I played Eastern Front to death on my Atari 800, and I was addicted to Excalibur for many months. I think it might be one of the most underrated 8-bit games ever made. I also played Balance Of Power and I thought the whole thing was intriguing. While Mr. Crawford has made some mistakes, I find the usual game industry "dog-pile" that materializes every time he does any thing really sad and disheartening.
|
|
|
| Justin LeGrande |
|
I'm sorry to hear about the result of your Kickstarter, Mr. Crawford. I can slightly empathize with what happened... I was involved in an educational game project named 4see, a youth team building and organization game. The progenitors of the project were Nathan Maton and Ala'Diab. Our goal for the project was $16,500. We had tried to drum up interest in colleagues, both near and far. Nathan and Ala even attended public conferences, and had articles written about their project on Reddit! Despite their best efforts to find an audience, then explain the project to them, we only acquired support up to $8,000.
Your dragon speech in 1992 sums up the video game industry and it's customers perfectly. It did then, and it still does now. That probably won't change anytime soon. Sorry to say, but The Sims might be the closest we'll get to an evolution of Gossip within the first half of this century. The industry indeed follows the "engineer mentality" to a fault, focusing primarily on quickly producing whatever seems desirable, rather than calculating product sustainability which aims to challenge the sustainability of ancient games such as Chess or Go. Don't let that stop you, though. Maybe one day, more people will favor breadth over depth... Just to make one contrary plug to the general consensus here: I thought Balance of Power had a lot of potential to be used in a classroom setting. It doesn't reveal the answers immediately- your course of actions are not immediately obvious. However, as you learn more about our planet's history in all nations, one's ability to affect the game space is increased exponentially. I believe Balance of Power held a key in it's design that is the answer to the "edutainment game contradiction". Instead of focusing primarily on the subject of learning a topic, Balance of Power only used whatever knowledge the player brought with them when they started playing. In my opinion, that's a brilliant realization of how to make video games applicable to cognitive learning principles in newer, experimental forms of school curriculum. |
|
|
| Troy Walker |
|
... to me it seemed there was a lot of substance missing in the proposal and answers to many of his own questions where vague, one sentence ideologues.
and ya, he obviously has the wrong idea about kickstarter, i think he should be looking more for a government grant then individual private funding. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Chris Crawford |
|
Thanks, Justin. You might be interested to learn that I have a preliminary version of Gossip up and running on my Mac; it's designed to run on a screen as small as the iPhone's. It's certainly cute. I'll get back to it when I finish up Balance of the Planet. Unfortunately, so many great ideas were suggested by critics that I have months of work ahead of me before I can wrap up Balance of the Planet.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Joe kennedy |
|
Wow I found another picture of this dude's face
http://www.google.com/imgres?start=176&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&rls=org. mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1026&bih=653&tbm=isch&tbnid=1NQ2CjXiUEyGcM:&imgrefurl =http://expolounge.blogspot.com/2011/09/star-treks-balok.html&imgurl=http://farm 7.staticflickr.com/6199/6113204474_ed646e0920_o.jpg&w=594&h=452&ei=0qo5UO6dEuak2 gXN5YCYCg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=580&sig=113515426330976850135&page=10&tbnh=139&tbnw =170&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:176,i:357&tx=102&ty=40 |
|
|
| Michael Hartman |
|
Chris, I respect your career, but your Kickstarter video reminded me of Matthew Lesko (the guy with the question mark covered suits) who used to sell those books on tv with his crazy ads about "FREE MONEY" from the government:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKbE1I_ih9Y Spending a couple MINUTES talking about how great you are made you come off extremely arrogant. You could have done it in 10 seconds and avoided that impression. "Hi, I'm Chris Crawford. I have X published games including Balance of Power and . I am also the founder of the Game Developer's Conference." That hits the highlights without making you look really arrogant. Humor is a powerful tool. But if you aren't good at it, trying too hard comes off really poorly. Leave humor to the comedians and if you try this again just play it straight. Also, as many people have mentioned, the #1 job of any game is to be fun. If you don't do that, none of the education will happen. Good luck with your game, -Michael Hartman http://www.frogdice.com |
|
|
| Eyal Teler |
|
Was Kickstarter ever really a semi-charitable operation? Was there any project at any point which raised $150,000 without providing much benefit to the backers? Kickstarter at its core is about raising money for projects, unlike Indiegogo which also supports charities, and for example the current project "Let's Build a Goddamn Tesla Museum" has raised over a million dollars there.
I've pledged a little bit of money to a few projects on Kickstarter where I didn't really get anything for my money, because the project will end up being free or not produce a consumer product, and I think such projects will still get pledges today. Only thing is, they won't get $150,000 or anywhere near. This is also true for almost all projects that do give backers something. |
|
|
| Chris Crawford |
|
Several people have complained that the opening 52 seconds recalling my past struck them as vainglorious. I did that because I expected that few potential contributors (including most younger gamers) would have any idea of my qualifications or experience; presenting a quickie resume seemed appropriate. I ran the video by a number of non-gamers and they all thought that the opening was excellent: concise yet establishing my credentials. I wonder if the critics of this section were already aware of my reputation?
Michael, you suggest that I'm not good at humor. I think I'll go hang myself. Your further write: "Also, as many people have mentioned, the #1 job of any game is to be fun. If you don't do that, none of the education will happen." Well, I suppose that pretty much discards our entire educational establishment. I can't recall having even a giggle in my quantum mechanics courses. Those colleges and universities 'don't get any education done', so we might as well shut them down and let the students play Wasteland for their educations. Or perhaps you overstated your case? |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Dave Hoskins |
|
Chris, the video is the problem IMHO.
You sound like you're talking to children, amongst other things already mentioned. Perhaps educational software should be sold seriously to parents and teachers, with better explanations on costs and business plans. Wearing a silly hat and talking like Bullwinkle didn't really sell it to me! |
|
|
| David Linn |
|
You are making a video game, of course it has to be fun. It is not a school thesis or college assignment. It is a video game and has to be fun. May be you overstated your case and put this project in the wrong category.
And the video is really bad as others have noted. If you are so interested in serious world issue, creating an amateurish silly video doesn't really help your case. Leave humor to the comedians as others have noted. Also, you need to hire an artist for your game. Leave the art to people who know art. |
|
|
| Michael O'Hair |
|
"That doesn't sound fun."
You know what's fun? Running around in a maze shooting at things. What know what else? People are getting sick of that fun. They're getting sick of the same old thing, the novelty is wearing off, and fewer players are buying games. Games are growing more and more creatively bankrupt. There are too many clones and mutations of Doom rather than games that expand upon great ideas that happened to appear decades ago. They're "fun" games, but there are just too damn many of them. More and more people will be looking beyond "fun", or it's standard definition, just as action movies get stale after a while. So "fun" shouldn't be the only target anymore. Do something new, or expand on ideas that haven't come around in a while. Worst case scenario: disappoint players with something that has never been done before. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Rik Spruitenburg |
|
|
(Yes, I read all the above comments time stamped before this one and Chris Crawford's links)
I think the idea would make for an interesting game. I think the idea could be reworked from what you have to make such a game. But I think Chris Crawford needs to figure out if he wants a game or if he wants an Educational Simulation. If it's an Educational Simulation then it doesn't need to be fun. It doesn't need pretty graphics. It doesn't need to be much more than an excel spreadsheet that provides interesting data. But then it's a narrow niche product that appeals only to a few and is played with only by those few and the people who have science teachers that made them. If you want to do this, try the Kickstarter again but list it under Open Software instead of Video Games. (Not my only suggestion on what to change, but a good start.) Conversely, if it's game then it has to be interesting and engaging right away.. It could benefit from graphics and sound. It would be great if the interface "comes alive". (I for one found the interface for Starcraft II to be more enjoyable than lots of other games.) It needs feedback that encourages people to try again. I could see voice actors and different endings like from Princess Maker. I could see a huge list of achievements. (You have Unlocked Dead World - Population Zero) Then it has a potential to reach lots of people, change lots of minds; maybe sell some t-shirts. I may be misreading, but I feel there is a hesitation to take the project down the game path. The article on "Eye Candy" is dismissive. Castle Story is going to teach probably over 50,000 people, and a lot of them will learn things about planing ahead. Looking iconic doesn't mean it's empty calories. Something can look like a game people would play and still have something to say. In fact most do, even if they didn't intend to. I'd recommend books by James Paul Gee if you haven't already read them and second the suggestion above to read Raph Koster's Theory of Fun. He feels there is a strong connection between learning and fun, and I am inclined to agree. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Rick Gush |
|
This is a typically clueless response from a charlatan who has been pretending to be a game designer for decades. Great game concept Chris! Golly, I wonder why absolutely nobody was at all interested in it. Chris has done yeoman work with the GDC, and we should all thank him for that, but his game design concepts are and have always been an insult to real game designers.
|
|
|
| Zsombor Berki |
|
I think the concept itself could be interesting, since many games are built on complex moral concepts, and globally affecting decisions, like Civilization, Populous, etc.
It's just really the thing that people before me have already mentioned: the interface itself is not very intuitive, or user friendly. A lot of things are textual. Using universally understood visual symbols, and streamlining features of the game into a better flowing UI is not an evil way of dumbing down the game. Games of older times did every feedback and info through text, because there was no other way, but I believe that using visual symbols is more instinctively recognized by people, because we are surrounded by them in our everyday life, and our brain is more accustomed to deciphering visual clues. |
|
|
| The Le |
|
Interesting that he seems to be blaming everyone except his own game concept -- it's very possible that his idea simply sucks. It could be the same reason the "sequel to Bad Dudes" failed miserably.
|
|
|
| Chris Crawford |
|
I'd like to thank Tom Curtis a second time for posting this story. It has been echoed all over the blogosphere and has resulted in a surge of contributions to the project. Not enough to close the gap, but I'm still very impressed with the generosity of the gaming community. It's a very disparate group of people.
|
|
|
| Chris Crawford |
|
I'd like to offer a comment on the common observation here that a game must be fun in order to have any educational value. The value of making learning fun is not a new concept; I was touting it as far back as 1982. I built my first educational game in 1976, and most of the games I've built since then were in some manner educational. So I know a thing or two about educational games.
The question here that seems to have been overlooked is "What are you trying to teach?" There are some things that are easy to make fun, and some things that are hard to make fun. For example, multiplication is really hard to make fun. There have been hundreds of attempts, most of them rather pathetic. On the other hand, orbital mechanics is easy to make fun. Quantum mechanics is a lot tougher, although I have a few ideas for how it could be done. My point is that the amenability of any topic to "fun-icizing" varies. If you want to teach hand-eye coordination, resource management, or simple spatial reasoning, it's REALLY easy to make that fun. Therefore, the claim that "it must be fun to be educational" is not supported by experience. It depends upon the subject matter. The point that a number of people here seem to miss is that Balance of the Planet tackles a subject that is complex and difficult; making it fun is vastly more difficult than, say, making it fun to blow up monsters. And Balance of the Planet is still a hell of lot more fun than a college textbook on environmental issues. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Corey Cole |
|
|
My issue was that it is a "learning game" with little or know opportunity to learn. Perhaps this would have been added in a later build; I'm not sure what Chris's intentions were/are. It isn't useful to see a graph showing that the world got better up to a point, then began to decline. I'd want to see a decade-by-decade explanation of what is going on in the model.
This is also why people want multiple turns. Currently the vogue in government and economics is active management - If you see that pollution is becoming a problem, you increase taxes for polluters. In practice, it works very poorly, but conceivably it might work better if such fixes were applied as soon as a potential problem is spotted. Players certainly want that hands-on management to see if they can safely guide the lunar lander to the ground. (Usually most people couldn't. :-) ) I played the original Balance of the Planet back in the 80's. It wasn't much fun as a game, but at least it had the spreadsheets so that the player got more information about what was happening turn-by-turn. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
More: Console/PC, Business/Marketing, Exclusive