Cagliostro88's forum posts

#1 Posted by Cagliostro88 (120 posts) -

@deegee: The team was 4 people, led by Jp Le Breton. Development was one-year and half. That's 720k only on employees, to that you must add every other voice of expense (like licensing fees). Tim Schafer said they used every every cent from the early access program to develop the game, plus a little from their own accounts. The 400k in investment they got was recouped in just two weeks, that means the game stopped selling quite early. But you have to think that a decent amount of money would come only when the game is fully released because many people, and we have some testimonies in this very thread, buy games only when they are in their final form. Now i doubt that money will be the same as before this debacle, and they damaged at least slightly their future projects with crowdfunding. Many very loyal fans like me will not go through a similar experience with them (at least it appear so by reading their forum and the game's one on steam). On this game they'll probably go even or with a minor gain, but who knows to how much the future damage amounts.

I guess I wished they stated clearly from the start: this game will be developed only with continuos payment by customers all throughout development, we're not gonna take any prominent financial risk of our own on it (they are not a 2 people indie studio that don't have any alternative), so be mindful of this additional risk.

#2 Edited by Cagliostro88 (120 posts) -

@jthom252 said:

I understand the majority of points, but i'm absolutely dissatisfied by Tim's answer about sales. He basically said "yeah sales are on a lot of times". That doesn't excuse at all putting the game on sale 50% just a week prior to it moving to the final state. If a person decided to buy the game a week prior, by seeing it on sale, he/she would have seen "alpha 6", not "beta", not "version 0.9.3". Tim says they are development terms but this is just technically right and a lot disingenious, if you put it on the game page it becomes a marketing term. So this person is gonna buy the game, thinking it's still a long way in development, and instead he gets basically the same version with hotfixes. It's simply not accetable, they knew a week prior they would not continue developement, so it's not an attempt to create audience to keep working on it. Furthermore if said person was worried by looking at the sparce updates, he would have ended up on DF forum looking for answers, and would have read that post (i see now that with the merging of threads on their forum it no longer link properly) by the main developer that only a month ago declared to not worry, since Double Fine it's not a "fly-by-night indie developer".

I've already made peace with the fact that i cannot trust them on future early-access/crowdfunding ("fool me once...") and that's ok, i'll buy their games only after a while they are out and only if they have positive reviews (and to think i own every single one of their won't be the case any longer); but the whole attitude with the latest steam sale it's not fine at all to me.

#3 Edited by Cagliostro88 (120 posts) -

@pcorb said:

@cagliostro88: The infantile attitude towards sexuality I'm talking about is not anywhere near as pervasive outside of games. Case in point is the fact that you're talking about Mass Effect as if it's Crime and Punishment when the characterisation and "romance" elements you're talking about would be regarded as pulpy, B-movie material in just about any other medium.

No i'm not talking about Mass Effect as if it's Crime and Punishment. At most i related the sexy elements in it to trash pop culture. And you know that ;)

You don't have to tell me narrative in games is a very basic level, everybody knows that and i agreed from the start. Would you point me to someone who wrote otherwise? That games are at the same narrative level as a whole to any another medium?

What i'm saying, for the n time, is that to me the way to reach new and better levels in narrative and inclusion is through adding and expanding. Not through eliminating. The positive force has to come through new games, new ways of thinking the narrative and characters in games, not by taking away the things you don't like. Make the people who are doing improving works feel your support, mainly by buying their games, and don't support the games you don't like. Simple as that

But this is getting very repetitive. I think i cleared more than once the points i was trying to make, so i'm gonna stop :) always a pleasure having a civil discussion with disaagreeing points!

final edit: @tdot: I understand what you're saying. I guess i didn't think that much of it because Bioware has use this kind of sexualization for years, mainly post acquisition from EA, see Samara/Miranda/Isabela/etc, but usually the characters behind used to be at least thought-through. The Bioware that made ME3 is not the same that was behind ME1. And personally doesn't bother me that much because i think of it as silly and done in a cheap way, the same way i can think of Megan Fox bending on a bike in a transformer movie

Regarding the video in the first page i'm totally with you, "boys will be boys" is not a way to argue anything (especially since this specifical line was used for years to justify bullying). She raise some points that are intelligent, others very stupid like the magazine/tv shows one (like having Cosmopolitan and Elle is the only printed press in existance, while we have so much magazines targeted specifically at males -_-')

#4 Edited by Cagliostro88 (120 posts) -

@tdot: But they made much more than just show off her polygonal body. They changed the whole attitude of the character. If they simply gave her a "sexy space amor" (i would have never imagined to type a sentence like that in my whole life :D), and kept the same attitude that would have been somewhat fine. But they went from a strong no-nonsense soldier (that i didn't like btw, hate space racists :D) to a different character. They evolved her in a massively stupid way (i guess i should have expected that from the late Bioware). Look at Samus Aran for a similar comparison: they did give her too high heels and a skin-tight suit. But the actual problem was how the character itself changed in Other M

#5 Edited by Cagliostro88 (120 posts) -

@pcorb said:
@cagliostro88 said:

And that is totally different than saying "they lack the confidence in their creative skills and use it as a substitute for well-thought characterization".

It's not. The characterisation in ME2 is only well-thought out for a video game, as I said. One of the main things holding back video games as a narrative form is the infantile attitude they routinely display towards sexuality. If ME2 is your best counter to that, I really have no idea what universe you're living in.

I guess that we're living in different universes then, because to me Miranda and Samara are not a sign that Bioware was reduced to use sex as the only way to develop characters (and that was your statement)

To say that this attitude holds back videogame is proved wrong by simple reality. Compare to any other medium you want: Movies? Written narrative? Music? You have your Transformers, your 50 shades, your Max Martin pop. You're gonna tell me that these things existing don't make it possible to have great movies, books and songs at the same time? That having these trashy pop things cancel the other amazing works? Because if not you can have you're pixely boobs and at the same time you can explore new narrative in other, new, exciting games. And that's exactly what i want. Keep the Dragon's Crowns and the Lollipop Chainsaws of the world, there is an audience that wants that, but at the same time we can have more serious games that want to improve the status-quo. And i'll pay for them

Your answer to the representation and narrative issue is "remove things". Personally i prefer "let's add things" :)

#6 Posted by Cagliostro88 (120 posts) -

@nexas said:

@cagliostro88: Fair enough, but considering Bioware's output in recent years I think the assumption is pretty valid. The company seems to have huge lack of confidence in everything they do now a days.

I agree, that's why i used *past* Bioware in that post :)

#7 Posted by Cagliostro88 (120 posts) -
@pcorb said:

@cagliostro88 said:

@pcorb said:

@cagliostro88: It definitely seems to me that they lack the confidence necessary to let their creations stand on their own merits. I don't need to constantly be shown a video game woman's t&a to be kept interested in her as a character, and every time I am I'm reminded of how little developers appear to think of their work and/or their audience

I repeat, we're talking about Bioware. A company that had a track record for more than a decade of games with absolutely great and memorable characters

To be clear, we're talking about a company with a track record of creating great characters as far as video games go. Land of the blind, one-eyed man etc.

Yeah, we're talking about games no? :)

@pcorb said:

@cagliostro88 said:

If you remove the "sexy" elements from ME2 it doesn't suddenly become a skeleton of a game because the appeal was in the character appereances.

Exactly. The "sexy elements" are entirely unnecessary and gratuitous. That's the problem. The point isn't that sexual content in media is an inherently bad thing. Nobody serious is saying anything like that. The point is that sexual content which exists solely to pander to the audience is lame as fuck.

And that is totally different than saying "they lack the confidence in their creative skills and use it as a substitute for well-thought characterization". That you consider them "lame as fuck" is fine, is just your opinion of these elements and i have no problem with that, like mine is that they are at most innocuous. In the first case you make a certain assumption on the developer, in the second is just your very personal reaction to these elements. They are two very different things

#8 Posted by Cagliostro88 (120 posts) -

@nexas said:

@cagliostro88: Simply saying "Bioware" over and over again is not an argument. The fact that they have written well realized female characters in past does not mean that they are above criticism of how they represent female characters in their current games. Some one who has strong feminist leanings can still rely on tired sexist tropes. You can have well-realized female characters and creepy fanservice in the same game. It is not a zero-sum game.

You're missing the point of what i was saying: Bioware came up as a response to pcorb sentence i quoted. It was a specific example of the exact thing he was saying. I never claimed it was an argumend on the whole matter, and never said they were above criticsm, or even that they don't use sexist elments in game, and i know very well that it is not a zero-sum game.

Don't take it beyond the scope of what i was pointing to. He said "Every time a game shoves a huge pair of tits on the screen or takes a long, lingering shot of a woman's ass before she turns around, I feel embarrassed by my hobby and disappointed that developers are so lacking in confidence in their creative abilities that they appear to think digitised, oversized physical attributes are an acceptable substitute for well thought out characterisation." I reported an example of those exact things, and made an argument that the assumption about the developers he was making was very difficult, to say the least, to apply

#9 Posted by Cagliostro88 (120 posts) -

Sex is not a bad thing. Sexuality isn't a bad thing. Attraction isn't a bad thing.

More female representation is a good thing. More women in game development would be a great thing. More well rounded characters all around would be a good thing.

We don't need to get rid of tropes. We need more representation in games. Period.

I agree with you 100%. Thank you for saying that in a simple way :)

#10 Edited by Cagliostro88 (120 posts) -

@heyguys: I understand you completely, even if i didn't have the same reaction, and in fact i compared to them to commercials that uses something like sexualised models in a winky way. I used the word "cheap" to describe them. But the problem you found is "this break my immersion", not "this is done because the developer wants to present me with pieces of "pixel" meat to keep me interested because otherwise i wouldn't care". It actually had the opposite effect on you. If you remove the "sexy" elements from ME2 it doesn't suddenly become a skeleton of a game because the appeal was in the character appereances.

By the way we can discuss about these outfits, but i would actually discuss why asari have massive mammary glands even if i don't think they are mammals and mating with species from all over the galaxy there is little need to have them if only humans find that feature aestetically and sexually interesting (i doubt Krogans find breasts arousing :D). The rabbit hole can go as deep as we want if we wish to discuss this kind of things :)