Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@ Buzzsaw: Ah okay, but I still don't think not including the furry stuff will necessarily harm the campaign.

For example, if they wanted to raise a ton of cash they could make some mecha ponies and sell them alongside the other stuff... it would make a lot of money from a particular crowd (see the Impact! Miniatures Chibi RPG minis KS for an example of the kind of cash people will pony up. :p).. but it would be an absolutely *horrible* idea in terms of being suitable for the gaming system in general and would turn off the other backers.

It worked well for Impact! because they were already selling to anime fans/ people who liked SDE and other kinds of adorable chibi stuff.

Here the target market is different, and the furry stuff feels like less of a natural fit for their setting, whereas it works well in Infinity (which has a variety of wolfmen and catgirls) since that game is anime-inspired and has a target audience that laps it up.

A lot of the issue is down to them not having a really good vision for the furry factions as far as I can tell. This is often something a lot of companies fail at when they try to do a furry army... for example AT-43's Karmans and the Mantic Veer-myn aren't exactly armies that you take very seriously. AT-43 made a good effort by having them as buddhist monk-ies but this effort was undermined by the hilarious cigar chomping minis in bubble helmets.

 scarletsquig wrote:
@ Buzzsaw: Ah okay, but I still don't think not including the furry stuff will necessarily harm the campaign.

For example, if they wanted to raise a ton of cash they could make some mecha ponies and sell them alongside the other stuff... it would make a lot of money from a particular crowd (see the Impact! Miniatures Chibi RPG minis KS for an example of the kind of cash people will pony up. :p).. but it would be an absolutely *horrible* idea in terms of being suitable for the gaming system in general and would turn off the other backers.

It worked well for Impact! because they were already selling to anime fans/ people who liked SDE and other kinds of adorable chibi stuff.

Here the target market is different, and the furry stuff feels like less of a natural fit for their setting, whereas it works well in Infinity since that game is anime-inspired and has a target audience that laps it up, so to speak.

A very good point: it really depends on what people mean by "furry". The Brushfire version, like the classic Robin Hood anthropomorphic character, is obviously a bit too outlandish.

More "realistic" things, like say the Scarrans from Farscape? That I think would work very well in-universe.

^ Pretty much anything from Farscape is really good, most of the alien races for that show were really well thought-out and unique. Farting slugmen aside.

Speaking of farscape: iS anyone else incredibly pissed its no longer on Netflix?!?!?

 scarletsquig wrote:

Here the target market is different, and the furry stuff feels like less of a natural fit for their setting, whereas it works well in Infinity (which has a variety of wolfmen and catgirls) since that game is anime-inspired and has a target audience that laps it up.

Yeah this is a good point Squig, at the end of the day furry characters may simply not fit at all in the GoA universe and that's that. I think the real issue is that Dark Space Corp don't seem to have a full grasp about what is "believable" in this game either, and every idea that gets presented is up in the air and immediately fracturing the community. In fact I'm not a 100% sure what the overall theme of this game even is, other than "sci-fi", which when you think about it means very little. Its why I brung up the furry thing, because it (and the female representation thread) kinda sums up my worries over this project. I'm really worried that the whole "design by committee" approach they are taking is going to remove any unique or interesting ideas just because a few loud mouths say so and we just end up with a "Shade of Grey" wargame/miniatures range.

It's still early days for this project, and hope everything gets sorted out, I don't wish to come off as somone who wants to see this project fail because it's really not the case.


BTW I would like to apologise to everyone for derailing the thread like that, the whole furry thing was started by me, very sorry

 Rolt wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:

Here the target market is different, and the furry stuff feels like less of a natural fit for their setting, whereas it works well in Infinity (which has a variety of wolfmen and catgirls) since that game is anime-inspired and has a target audience that laps it up.

Yeah this is a good point Squig, at the end of the day furries characters may simply not fit at all in the GoA universe and that's that. I think the real issue is that Dark Space Corp don't seem to have a full grasp about what is "believable" in this game either and every idea that gets presented is up in the air and immediately fracturing the community. In fact I'm not a 100% what the overall theme of this game even is, other than "sci-fi", which when you think about it means nothing. Its why I brung up the furry thing, because it (and the female representation thread) kinda sums up my worries over this project. I'm really worried that the whole "design by committee" approach they are taking is going to remove any unique or interesting ideas just because a few loud mouths say so and we just end up with a "Shade of Grey" wargame/miniatures range.

It's still early days for this project, and hope everything gets sorted out, I don't wish to come off as somone who wants to see this project fail because it's really not the case.


BTW I would like to apologise to everyone for derailing the thread like that, the whole furry thing was started by me, very sorry

Don't apologize, you've honestly crystallized the over-arcing problem this campaign has: what exactly is it all about?

Like I said earlier about the Hansa: it's a very competently made, very generic... guy. There is just nothing about him that let's you know what universe he is from. He doesn't "read" Star Wars, or Firefly, or Terminator, or 40k, or Infinity, he's just... there.

So far their aesthetic seems to be a lack of aesthetic.

The fact that they want the basic aesthetic of the universe to be determined by the masses I some of the primary reasons I'm not backing. If I wanted to try and create my own sci fi universe to turn into a game, I'd try to.

It's a shame, because I like the proposed "living" nature of the game portions they've proposed....there's just nothing there to convince me to back.

 scarletsquig wrote:
@ Buzzsaw: Ah okay, but I still don't think not including the furry stuff will necessarily harm the campaign.

For example, if they wanted to raise a ton of cash they could make some mecha ponies and sell them alongside the other stuff... it would make a lot of money from a particular crowd (see the Impact! Miniatures Chibi RPG minis KS for an example of the kind of cash people will pony up. :p).. but it would be an absolutely *horrible* idea in terms of being suitable for the gaming system in general and would turn off the other backers.

If they wanted a ton of money, they'd have concepts and greens of hyper-masculine heroic-looking humans with big kick-arse guns in chunky armour. Something in between GW's own Marines and Mantic's Enforcers and Gears of War's troopers or Master Chief from Halo. We all know that this is what sells, it's a popular sci-fi trope, and if furries fit then this surely also fits in/can be shoehorned into their background. A well-designed space trooper would also work as proxies for other games including 40k. With a good design and some good sculpts, they'd sell a gakload.

Seriously, a gakload. Far more than furries or space apes or catmen or androgynous humans. They don't have to actually be space marines or covered in skulls and bad latin. They just have to have the heavily-armoured and armed look.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Don't apologize, you've honestly crystallized the over-arcing problem this campaign has: what exactly is it all about?

Like I said earlier about the Hansa: it's a very competently made, very generic... guy. There is just nothing about him that let's you know what universe he is from. He doesn't "read" Star Wars, or Firefly, or Terminator, or 40k, or Infinity, he's just... there.

So far their aesthetic seems to be a lack of aesthetic.

Well said, and yes, the furry issue is a good point and worth the discussion that we had. I like Hansa, and as I said earlier, I would totally buy him as a random cool looking model from Hasslefree for 4 quid. On the other hand, nothing about him says "super-cool limited edition figure" or inspires me to buy a force of them.

 scipio.au wrote:

 scarletsquig wrote:
@ Buzzsaw: Ah okay, but I still don't think not including the furry stuff will necessarily harm the campaign.

For example, if they wanted to raise a ton of cash they could make some mecha ponies and sell them alongside the other stuff... it would make a lot of money from a particular crowd (see the Impact! Miniatures Chibi RPG minis KS for an example of the kind of cash people will pony up. :p).. but it would be an absolutely *horrible* idea in terms of being suitable for the gaming system in general and would turn off the other backers.

If they wanted a ton of money, they'd have concepts and greens of hyper-masculine heroic-looking humans with big kick-arse guns in chunky armour. Something in between GW's own Marines and Mantic's Enforcers and Gears of War's troopers or Master Chief from Halo. We all know that this is what sells, it's a popular sci-fi trope, and if furries fit then this surely also fits in/can be shoehorned into their background. A well-designed space trooper would also work as proxies for other games including 40k. With a good design and some good sculpts, they'd sell a gakload.

Seriously, a gakload. Far more than furries or space apes or catmen or androgynous humans. They don't have to actually be space marines or covered in skulls and bad latin. They just have to have the heavily-armoured and armed look.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Buzzsaw wrote:

Don't apologize, you've honestly crystallized the over-arcing problem this campaign has: what exactly is it all about?

Like I said earlier about the Hansa: it's a very competently made, very generic... guy. There is just nothing about him that let's you know what universe he is from. He doesn't "read" Star Wars, or Firefly, or Terminator, or 40k, or Infinity, he's just... there.

So far their aesthetic seems to be a lack of aesthetic.

Well said, and yes, the furry issue is a good point and worth the discussion that we had. I like Hansa, and as I said earlier, I would totally buy him as a random cool looking model from Hasslefree for 4 quid. On the other hand, nothing about him says "super-cool limited edition figure" or inspires me to buy a force of them.

This. For a few bucks, I'd toss him in an order, and even double that price as a LE figure I'd get him but $30-35 pledge level is just a bit much. I looked over the pledge levels today, and they're not really offering much of a discount the way the Sedition Wars or Zombicide boxed game did.

--Chris
www.chrisvalera.com

I am glad to see this thread is back on topic.



Let us keep it there.

My view of a universe designed by fan committee is that you have the danger of getting an incoherent bunch of crap which annoys as many people as it pleases. However, if the ideas are sifted carefully you hopefully would get some good ones you wouldn't have thought of by yourself. I do believe a good production designer is needed to impose a rational aesthetic to the look and feel of everything.

 cincydooley wrote:
The fact that they want the basic aesthetic of the universe to be determined by the masses I some of the primary reasons I'm not backing. If I wanted to try and create my own sci fi universe to turn into a game, I'd try to.

It's a shame, because I like the proposed "living" nature of the game portions they've proposed....there's just nothing there to convince me to back.

The thing is, it's not going to be determined by the masses or designed by committee really. Rick and the central team do have a strong vision of how things should be (though admitedly you have to read a lot of different bits of the website/forum to piece it together).

Yes they have asked for feedback and input, but it doesn't mean they have to listen to it all and end up with a lowest common denominator muddle. They will (hopefully!) sift all the ideas for the good ones that improve their original concept.

There is a risk that people may get annoyed if their ideas aren't incorporated of course, due to an expectation that they have a say. But they'll just need to be grown-up about it.

If you want to get a handle on Rick's vision for the game, watch the Beasts of War video. It's the clearest explanation yet:

http://www.beastsofwar.com/sci-fi-wargaming/bow-interview-gates-antares-rick-priestley/

Yes, its not so much designed by a committee but croudsourshing for interesting ideas and concepts, I still find the vision and overall description of what it is foggy though.

Personally and while I am a backer and supporter, I am not that intrigued by most of what is on the table, if you find it odd, I am in to see what Rick can design, as a wargame rules collector and as an amateur game designer I am quite intrigued to see how he tackles the essential wargame problems, how he manages to differentiate from the other wargames, at what levels he thinks the table is saturated and other such stuff, that's why my input is zero, I would love to see a pristine creation and while I do not have it, I would rather not contaminate it with my own Bias too.

 Buzzsaw wrote:
[

Like I said earlier about the Hansa: it's a very competently made, very generic... guy. There is just nothing about him that let's you know what universe he is from. He doesn't "read" Star Wars, or Firefly, or Terminator, or 40k, or Infinity, he's just... there.

So far their aesthetic seems to be a lack of aesthetic.

I like Hansa a lot, it's a beautiful sculpt. He does look like a normal guy (albeit with big muscles and a massive 'tache), but that is a selling point to me.

We all see so many models that for something to be attention-grabbingly different it would have to be pretty "out there", which would be bad I think. I don't want weird poses, enormous weapons, huge armour. We get enough of that in 40k and Warmachine (though I like them both).

This model is quite understated, but realistic and very well done. This setting will hopefully have a plausible feel to it, which will set it apart from the two biggest games out there, both of which are doused in lashings of fantasy. Hansa is the first step in achieving that "realistic" tone.

True, Hansa could just about fit into an IG army, but he'd be the coolest dude on the table

It's not immediately obvious to look at, but elements of the setting's technology do come through in the sculpt - those metal plates all over him are not ordinary armour, just the metallic structure that generates his forcefield. Almost everyone has fields in this game, rather than hard armour. That gun he has is a nifty compressor gun, draft rules for which Rick posted the other day.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:


Personally and while I am a backer and supporter, I am not that intrigued by most of what is on the table, if you find it odd, I am in to see what Rick can design, as a wargame rules collector and as an amateur game designer I am quite intrigued to see how he tackles the essential wargame problems, how he manages to differentiate from the other wargames, at what levels he thinks the table is saturated and other such stuff, that's why my input is zero, I would love to see a pristine creation and while I do not have it, I would rather not contaminate it with my own Bias too.

Well, I am a backer too.

The funny thing though, IMO, appears to be that in the game they want to make, they are shooting very much for a "stimulation" approach. One of the few thing almost all GoA-Backers seem to be able to agree on is that 40K is to "gamist", lacking the sort of verisimilitude and fluff-rule-correlations they hope to create in GoA. Rather unique basic stats like TECH and COM, the whole Nano-spin layered right into the rules, the "micro-fluff" in all those weapon-stats, etc.. .

So this isn't really the attempt to build the "D10-miniature-skirmish-game-rules" to rule them all. It looks like it want to be a very simulation-focused, high-verisimilitude set of rules for the GoA setting, which in turn (as pointed out frequently) isn't really that "clear" yet, which IMO creates something of a chicken-and-egg problem.

The thing is, it's not going to be determined by the masses or designed by committee really. Rick and the central team do have a strong vision of how things should be (though admitedly you have to read a lot of different bits of the website/forum to piece it together).

Yes they have asked for feedback and input, but it doesn't mean they have to listen to it all and end up with a lowest common denominator muddle. They will (hopefully!) sift all the ideas for the good ones that improve their original concept.

There is a risk that people may get annoyed if their ideas aren't incorporated of course, due to an expectation that they have a say. But they'll just need to be grown-up about it.

That´s exactly what they are doing. They said that they have a core vision but are still open to include things if they are well-conceived and make sense within the universe.

And to be honest, that´s how in a silightly different way 40K began its life back then. Rick was always someone to listen to what fans of the game wanted and tried to incorporate the good ideas (if the managment let him).

Fiore wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
The fact that they want the basic aesthetic of the universe to be determined by the masses I some of the primary reasons I'm not backing. If I wanted to try and create my own sci fi universe to turn into a game, I'd try to.

It's a shame, because I like the proposed "living" nature of the game portions they've proposed....there's just nothing there to convince me to back.

The thing is, it's not going to be determined by the masses or designed by committee really. Rick and the central team do have a strong vision of how things should be (though admitedly you have to read a lot of different bits of the website/forum to piece it together).

See, I think that's the problem, and that I got the impression that I got that this was poorly put together. I, and I'm sure a lot of people are going to do the same, just took a look at the kickstarter page, decided there wasn't enough there, and took a pass on the whole thing. Not a whole lot of people are going to read through the endless forum pages, which at this point are filled with super-nerds discussing the finer technical points of the game.

It comes down to the elevator pitch. If you can't make your pitch in 30 seconds to someone in an elevator, you're not very good at your job. They should have come right out and said, "There's an artifact built by an ancient alien race called the Gates of Antares, it allows alien civilizations to travel to a specific area and meet up. There's conflict because X,Y,,Z."

I know people differentiate between a "true" kickstarter and a pre-order service, but when you look at the preliminary work Zombicide or Sedition Wars, it's like night and day.

--Chris
www.chrisvalera.com

 chris_valera wrote:


See, I think that's the problem, and that I got the impression that I got that this was poorly put together. I, and I'm sure a lot of people are going to do the same, just took a look at the kickstarter page, decided there wasn't enough there, and took a pass on the whole thing.

Yeah, that's a fair point. You certainly have to work for it a bit at the moment, and clearly someone willing to work to find out the info must already be pretty interested anyway.

A casual passerby on the Kickstarter probably wouldn't see much of the potential and vision I think is there.

Hopefully as they continue to add more meat to the kickstarter page that might change, but it does seem that visuals are what will hook in the majority of people. Partly because you can see the pictures and go "wow" in an instant, without having to read lots of text to get to the exciting bits. Hopefully some more will be arriving soon.

Fiore wrote:



Hopefully as they continue to add more meat to the kickstarter page that might change, but it does seem that visuals are what will hook in the majority of people.

That is not true.

Every Kickstarter needs a "hook", as you say. And while "visuals" are certainly one possible hook, the one this Kickstarter project used out to catch the fish is the celebrity name-dropping of "Rick Priestley".

It's as much honey to lure the flies as snazzy visuals are, and it's clearly worth USD 100.000,- or more at the very least. That's no pocket-change. The Kickstarter-page and DSC-forums are full with comments that say "Rick-can-do-no-wrong-so-I-back-this"

If I start a Kickstarter for "Zweischneid's new sci-fi wargaming universe" and one green to start, I doubt I'd get even 1% of that.

For some reason, however, people seem to think that a "visual-hook" is morally inferior or less "true" to the Kickstarter vision than the "celebrity-name-hook", which strikes me as rather odd. And, as good as the "Rick-Priestley-hook" is, it just might not be half-a-million-dollar good.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Fiore wrote:



Hopefully as they continue to add more meat to the kickstarter page that might change, but it does seem that visuals are what will hook in the majority of people.

That is not true.

Every Kickstarter needs a "hook", as you say. And while "visuals" are certainly one possible hook, the one this Kickstarter project used out to catch the fish is the celebrity name-dropping of "Rick Priestley".

It's as much honey to lure the flies as snazzy visuals are, and it's clearly worth USD 100.000,- or more at the very least. That's no pocket-change. The Kickstarter-page and DSC-forums are full with comments that say "Rick-can-do-no-wrong-so-I-back-this"

If I start a Kickstarter for "Zweischneid's new sci-fi wargaming universe" and one green to start, I doubt I'd get even 1% of that.

For some reason, however, people seem to think that a "visual-hook" is morally inferior or less "true" to the Kickstarter vision than the "celebrity-name-hook", which strikes me as rather odd. And, as good as the "Rick-Priestley-hook" is, it just might not be half-a-million-dollar good.

well not 100% agree, miniwargaming generated 60k+ USD to create the Dark Potential... and there is no "celebrity-name-hook". to be hones, the Rick Priestley does not convince me to back it up, as what i can see is GW "mind set".

I would back it up ANY system as long is creative AND I can see models or at least some advanced sculpts or 3D renders.

 Zweischneid wrote:

Fiore wrote:



Hopefully as they continue to add more meat to the kickstarter page that might change, but it does seem that visuals are what will hook in the majority of people.

That is not true.

Not entirely sure, but you may have misunderstood me. I should have made it clearer.

I meant that visual images in general seem to be what will win most people (not all, by any means) to a particular miniatures game kickstarter. Seems self-evidently true. Lots of people in this thread have said they won't pledge until they see miniatures.

I didn't mean that the current visuals on this project are its hook, since there are hardly any visuals yet. I agree Rick's name was the initial hook for GoA. But there is more there now than just his name in my opinion, with lots more coming. With a bit of luck

Well, I pledged today. Just at the £25 level, to get the finished rulebook and Hansa. I may pledge more if I get to see some cool looking miniatures, but I surely do need to se a little bit more first.

I suppose that's a good way to think of it. If you go in at £25, you know exactly what you're going to get. - There's no uncertainty there about whether you'll like the models or not, since you'll always be able to use your own ones.

At $25, I would agree with you. At 25GBP, a rulebook and a mini just don't seem like a good value anymore. Especially if the rules aren't your main interest.

 Compel wrote:
I suppose that's a good way to think of it. If you go in at £25, you know exactly what you're going to get. - There's no uncertainty there about whether you'll like the models or not, since you'll always be able to use your own ones.

Very true, but I wonder if that $25 wouldn't have been a $100 pledge if they actually showed you what you were going to get in the box set. Sedition Wars: Battle for Alabaster was full of pics, they all looked great, and it far exceeded its goal.

Granted there's a line between a true kickstarter and a pre-order service, but there's again the question of why are we supposed to drop $100-200 on this game if the game's creators weren't initially willing to drop $100-200 on some sketches of what the game's races are supposed to look like, or on some greens that would have given us a better idea what the game is all about.

I love the Starship Troopers game, which had no kickstarter, and bought several copies of the basic game. I would spend to get the box game, but right now I'm holding back, due to the lack of info. laffe only bought the basic level, due to the lack of info.

I wonder if there's not a few people like me and laffe out there

--Chris
www.chrisvalera.com

There's a note on the top of their KS page now - is it new?

Quick Note: Kickstarter doesn't take your pledge until the end of the campaign (Feb 28th in our case), so if you're thinking of pledging, why not do it now - it'll really help us out! you can always come back later and change your pledge through the pledge manager - Thank you!

Looks like an attempt to combat the inertia that the campaign now has.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
At $25, I would agree with you. At 25GBP, a rulebook and a mini just don't seem like a good value anymore. Especially if the rules aren't your main interest.

Nod. With the postage added, we're talking about close to $45. I guess it's not likely to hit it's goal, and so they won't actually be taking the $45 from us, so there's that..

The note was there from the beginning, or atleast from when I pledged.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
At $25, I would agree with you. At 25GBP, a rulebook and a mini just don't seem like a good value anymore. Especially if the rules aren't your main interest.

Arent most "serious" attempts at wargaming rules usually $30-50 though? Thats pretty in line with what most companies offer including Warlord's rulesets some of which which Rick wrote

Now granted it is easier to fork over when the book is out to entirely know how the game is gonna be like with reviews and stuff. I know many people who disliked/dropped Bolt Action when they found the rules too movie like by reading forum posts and reviews.

Call me crazy, but I shouldn't have to watch an hour long video to understand what the game is about......

 kenshin620 wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
At $25, I would agree with you. At 25GBP, a rulebook and a mini just don't seem like a good value anymore. Especially if the rules aren't your main interest.

Arent most "serious" attempts at wargaming rules usually $30-50 though? Thats pretty in line with what most companies offer including Warlord's rulesets some of which which Rick wrote

Now granted it is easier to fork over when the book is out to entirely know how the game is gonna be like with reviews and stuff. I know many people who disliked/dropped Bolt Action when they found the rules too movie like by reading forum posts and reviews.

When we talk about going in just for the rulebook, the issue I have is really Rick Priestly vs The Internet.

Aside from cincy's post above which makes a great point (I also have no interest in trawling through their forums) I'd probably buy a rulebook from RP if it had good reviews, or possibly sight-unseen from a KS like this if I trusted it to be written by RP and had a strong visual direction. When I say "vs The Internet" - I mean the whole "design by committee" aspect puts me off, and massively so. The linked thread on gender politics? The argument between Hansa and Hansolo-a? Most of the threads on that board? No thanks, I don't really want to buy in to their vision, sight unseen. :(

With campaigns that have a bunch of models/greens/concept art pieces, that risk is negated somewhat.

 scipio.au wrote:
There's a note on the top of their KS page now - is it new?

Quick Note: Kickstarter doesn't take your pledge until the end of the campaign (Feb 28th in our case), so if you're thinking of pledging, why not do it now - it'll really help us out! you can always come back later and change your pledge through the pledge manager - Thank you!

Looks like an attempt to combat the inertia that the campaign now has.

I can confirm what Melcavuk said - that note was there right from the start.