Honestly, this might be a storm in a teacup, but I thought it was an interesting topic to discuss nonetheless.

Thanks to some sleuthing by the people on the RPG Codex forums (Y'know, I was going to link to them, but that thread is just an absolutely vile cesspool and you'll feel better about life if you don't read it) it seems like Torment: Tides of Numenera will not be delivering on a decent chunk of the stretch goals promised in the initial Kickstarter campaign, most of which I had forgotten about until I came upon the topic. This includes stuff like the number of companions (somewhere around 8 or 9 were promised, only 6 will be in the final game,) the status of the game's second big city (Still in the game in a smaller form, but the second major hub area was moved elsewhere) and a promised Italian localization. When confronted, a couple of the devs at InXile freely admitted that things had been changed and cut because that's how game development works, culminating in a backer update addressing the issue and formally apologizing for a lack of transparency.

I'm not one to usually take the side of the angry, miserable people who inhabit the Codex, but it has made me wonder how responsible devs are to deliver on their promises made during the rush of a crowdfunded campaign, especially one from the tail-end of the initial KS boom. If you listen to Josh Sawyer talk about some of the challenges Obsidian encountered during the development of Pillars of Eternity, a lot of them were about the need to implement a bunch of stretch goals only thought up as the money started to pour in, like the game's stronghold, crafting system, and optional mega-dungeon (not to mention the mostly-terrible backer NPC blurbs.) As someone who liked Pillars a whole hell of a lot, I don't think it's a particularly controversial statement to say that the stronghold, crafting system, and optional mega-dungeon were done much better elsewhere, and if you look at the announced stretch goals for Pillars II's current campaign they're significantly more modest and suggest that the game's scale is already pretty locked down.

I think it's patently obvious that the development of Torment has been through some rough spots, given the part where it's been almost 4 years since I backed that thing (original estimated delivery date was December 2014) and given the part where InXile has had the gall to fund two more projects since then, both of which I've also backed out of increasingly morbid curiosity. I'm still very interested in playing the final game, but I think that stuff, plus the "Entirely okay" quality of Wasteland 2 has tempered my expectations far more than any broken promises would. I'd be interested in hearing what any of you think about this, backer or no, and also predictions for when The Bard's Tale IV will actually come out. I'm guessing mid-2018 myself.

I was actually was given Torment as a Christmas present, and while Planescape: Torment is my absolute favourite game ever, I didn't give Torment's crowdfunding campaign much attention. As such, I hadn't given any thought to the stretch goals, but nothing you're saying is very surprising to me. I do agree that the hastily-added stretch goals for Eternity weren't really to the game's credit, and if I remember correctly, there was a stretch goal for a second major city in that game as well that was never realised.

As far as Torment is concerned, as I didn't participate in the crowdfunding I don't have a horse in that race, but I have played the game a bit this past month to get my feet wet ahead of its release, and I'm extremely pleased with the deftness with which they have built that world, or as much of it as I've seen. If the game holds up the quality of dialogue and world-building that I've seen from the first hours, this game will most likely be the best game I will have played this year, even if(or perhaps especially if) there's not too much content.

There was a second major city in Pillars of Eternity, however the city ended up being somewhat superfluous and of lower quality then the first city. Obsidian has since said that having two cities was a mistake they realized in development but that they followed through on because of the kickstarter stretch goals. In the crowdfunding effort for Pillars of Eternity 2 they've said they are only focusing on one city.

I backed wasteland 2 and Torment, but I found wasteland 2 fairly disappointing. What I've played for Torment so-far however has been of exceptional quality.

I backed Torment, and I can understand people are annoyed but maybe they need to go into kickstarters with a better idea of what they're purchasing. Realities mean things might get cut or changed, hopefully it makes for a tighter game. I feel like the fairest thing to be annoyed about would be the Italian translation though. I know it's got to be a relatively small amount of people, but that's the only promise that feels dickish to not follow through on as I can see it leading to people who have paid money not actually being able to play if they have poor English skills.

Edit: I see in the backer update that they do at least offer refunds for the people that are unable to play in English, which is the very least they could do. Feel bad for the people anticipating it for years only to find out a month before release they can't play. They should have made that apology offering the moment they officially decided they were scrapping it.

@arbitrarywater:

The shitty thing here is the fact that the devs had to be confronted about it. It's one thing to be a little too ambitious in the original pitch and then realize down the line that things will have to be scaled back, but when you're going through KS I think it's especially important to be straightforward and transparent.

Artists being held accountable by their audience for the content that they create is the worst thing to have ever happened to art itself. It's true of Renaissance art, it's true of pop music, it's true of crowdfunded video games. When artists create work entirely on their own terms, it's consistently more compelling than 'commissioned' work (although it can be more divisive). Fans/commissioners think they know what they want, but they don't, and giving them the capacity to do more than criticize - to actually shape the work itself, as if they were puppeteering the artist - muddles the final product.

Should these devs have added unreasonable stretch goals? Of course not. They apparently didn't really intend to do them in the first place. Why did they add them? Because they were pretty sure they know what their audience wants: more. I contest that the artist should never account for what the audience wants when producing work, and this sort of failed pandering is precisely why.

When it comes to art (books, comics, video games, etc.), crowdfunding is good for one thing: the artist has a vision, they present that vision, and they ask, "do you want it?" You respond by saying "yes" with your money. There should be no other part to this transaction. There shouldn't be any negotiating, there shouldn't be any stretch goals, there shouldn't be anything other than the vision. In my experience with crowdfunding, it's the stretch goals that have taken the longest, by almost two times the timeframe it took to produce the original product, partly because the devs didn't really plan how to do them beforehand. Unless the stretch goals are already mapped out and are nearly (if not completely) integral to the original vision, just don't offer them.

Lastly, why did you back the other two concurrent projects?

I backed the project and don't really care about the missing content because I'd take quality over quantity any day.

I feel like their misstep here was announcing their cuts a month before release even though they'd have known about it for at least a year or two. That to me seems like a shitty move and I can see the perceived disrespect that some people may feel as a result

Came in to echo the same sentiment. I'm just gonna re post what you said because it pretty much mirror what I think.

While developers are not totally without fault, a huge portion of crowd funders are acting the same as if they were investors.

I expect these things to happen.

I just wish devs would more forthright in communicating with their fans.

I guess though it didn't work out for DoubleFine when they tried

I liked Wasteland 2 enough that I felt okay about backing The Bard's Tale, although in retrospect I definitely should've put that money towards Bloodstained instead. I don't really have a good excuse for backing Wasteland 3, outside of my own morbid curiosity to see if InXile will get their shit together and make a truly great RPG revival instead of an okay one. $20 isn't exactly a big commitment, y'know?

This is why promising features on these kind tiers is a questionable thing. Developers need to be careful what they promise and I think people need to be ready to not expect those features.

Speaking as someone who has never done a Kickstarter but is happy to buy finished products. I have found a lot of these cRPGs done through Kickstarter pretty lackluster. I understand budget realities but I think they show in the games many times.

@kcin: I agree with your sentiment generally but not how it applies to the issue of kickstarted games. I guess there are basically two possible constructs - the artist has a vision and his minimum goal is what is required to achieve that entire vision, or alternatively, the artist has a vision and the maximum stretch goal is what is required to achieve that entire vision.

The latter is the correct model. Ask for what you need but be prepared to work with less. It is a fundamental reality of art throughout the centuries that artists' ambitions have been constrained by resources, and it's why the best pieces of art aren't necessarily the biggest.

This entire conversation is predicated on the assumption that artists know how much funding they need, which they don't. Sometimes things come in under budget, but more often, budgeting is done with an overly rosy view of the challenges that the creator will face. Kickstarter is a novel paradigm because it actually does represent a fixed budget, whereas most artists historically have had benefactors who could allow a piece to go over budget if the reasons and the benefits could justify them. The various ways that developers have tried to get around budget overruns, additional funding, VC, mobile game development, are attempts to solve that new problem that all have their own shortcomings.

So this winding path is the way to my answer that artists are not wrong to state their goals, but benefactors must always be prepared for their ambitions to fall short. C'est la vie. I don't know what the legal foundation is but I suspect that as long as the actual features of the finished product are made known before that product is sold as a finished project (and not an idea) to anyone, there is no real cause for complaint.

If the end result is good who cares? The only issue I see here is being to specific in promises. Beyond that none of this sounds like it'll significantly impact the quality of the game.

While devs have some responsibility to be transparent, backers also have 100% responsibility for understanding what they are getting into. Things change in development. Be aware of that even if the studio isn't as clear as they could be. Focus on the quality of the end result rather than arbitrary content milestones unless truly egregious (ie 3 companions instead of 8, not 6 instead of 8) and even then it'll negatively impact the final result as a whole.

This seems like making a mountain from a molehill. For all I know this could actually make the game a tighter, better put together experience.

I backed Torment. To tell you the truth, I know I backed enough to get a digital copy of the game. I don't remember the amount without looking at the page. I've backed several other projects. Two of the finished games I backed, I never received a download key for, even after sending a message to the company via Kickstarter. I'm definitely going to be more pissed off at companies I never receive a game from than at companies that don't deliver on everything.

Of course, the company should've been much more transparent. At the very least, they should offer some form of compensation, but I think it's complicated. They didn't deliver on stretch goals. If I backed the game before the stretch goals were announced and never increased the amount I pledged, I can't really feel like I've missed out on anything. I could see how someone might feel differently if they increased their pledge amount or I they backed only after the stretch goals made the game seem more desirable to them.

@kcin: "Fans don't know what they want" is a fantastic excuse for artists who don't make what people want. Of course artists should make what they want to make. But when that art is ALSO a product to be sold, then yeah, they need to take into account what people want.

Some of the most admired and well-known works of art from the Renaissance era were commissioned, so I'm not sure why you would say that commissioned art is somehow worse than noncommissioned art.

Artists who don't make what people want won't get kickstarted, and likely don't have fans, so I'm not talking about them. When I said that fans don't know what they want, I am talking about people who are already fans of an artist. These artists are already making or have a history of making what people want. Having delineated that, the success and failure of Kickstarters is based wholly on the appeal of a pitch. Does this artist have a creative style that I like, and do I trust them to produce something I will like? If so, I'll back it. If not, I won't. They have faithfully made work that I had no hand in in the past, I see no reason to believe that I have something meaningful to add to their process, given that I have no experience working with them, working with their skillset, or working in their field. Meeting halfway on vision versus fan's wants is the problem here, in my eyes, and, indirectly, in the experiences of many who have used Kickstarter.

As for the commissioned work of the Renaissance era: depends entirely on who you talk to, dude. I, for one, think it's sterile and often soulless, and the subject matter is widely boring (and so did many of the artists who made it, for that matter), and I'm not alone in feeling that way. Commissioned art is not 'worse' than noncommissioned art, but it was (and still can be) intrinsically hamstringed by the wants of the patron, versus the creativity of the artist. I would much, much rather browse da Vinci's journals than look at the Mona Lisa.

Much of this is personal preference, though. Ultimately, I subscribe to auteur theory, and this is an extension of that.

This was a total oversight on my part. Yes, completely, artists FREQUENTLY have NO IDEA what the cost of their project will be, and FREQUENTLY underestimate it. Every time I have Kickstarted something, this has happened.

I get that meeting halfway on vision and fan wants is the issue. I don't think it's a case of fans not knowing what they want, but rather a case of fans not knowing how much what they want costs in terms of time, money, and effort.

I certainly won't argue on preference when it comes to art. I was just thinking of something like the Sistine Chapel, which was commissioned, and which I think contains many beautiful images even if I'm not religious.

I backed this game for a good bit of money a very long time ago and almost completely forgot about it. I understand if something happens and things need to be cut, even though I am disappointed at what was cut.

But when it is really close to release and you only announced what happened after someone else basically have to reveal that you cut things without saying a word is in pretty bad taste. All of these changes was made long before and yet only relatively recently was it announced.

Remember that this is not just an artist doing their craft, this is an entire company working on Torment with their own business people who will change the project just as much as the creators. To say that all of the cut content decisions came from the developers I would say is most likely false. People worked the numbers and calculated what to finish and what to cut out, hence why the Italian translation was taken out, it would not be profitable enough.

We will never know if the final project would be better with or without all the promises, what looks good on paper may not translate well in game. I am not going to witch hunt the developers for not keeping all their stretch goals, but I will condemn them for hiding it, or at the very least not being transparent on what has changed especially when they have regular updates.

I have been disappointed with most of the kickstarted games that I think I will not back another game in a very long time. This is one of the last projects that I am waiting full of hope to see what comes out of it. If this game becomes a great game then I think everyone will forgive them for it. Bioshock Infinite had cut content but the end product was really good and no one gave them too much hardship. No Man Sky also did not deliver on everything they promised and the game is considered mediocre at best to most people which led to extreme anger.

I am willing to wait and see. But I interested in more perspectives on this incident.

@artisanbreads: I hear ya. I loved a lot of the old CRPGs, and I've bought most, if not all, of the new kickstarted ones (Divinity: Original Sin, Pillars of Eternity, Tyranny, Wasteland 2). And I haven't really loved any of them. Its possible that I'm just looking something else in games these days, but I think at least some of the problem is the games themselves.

They all have detailed backstories with deep lore, but the main stories themselves are lackluster. And there's not nearly enough interesting side content to fill in the gaps. The games are long, but they are long because of combat segments; and its very easy to create combat encounters in CRPGs once your development tools are in place. What's not as easy is to hire good writers and have them write lots and lots of content; these new games mostly seem to get the setting in place and then not do much with it. Which makes me think the issue is that none of these games have enough budget to realize their ambitions.

That is totally how I feel about PoE in particular.

Past all this, you get to stuff like companions and they are still so roughly handled like its back to times in cRPGs, like Fallout 1 for example, before you had full fledged party members you could interact with and manage easily. I just don't like seeing that kind of roughness in modern times from an RPG. When this cRPG revival came about I was excited to see how they could build upon the Infinity Engine formula but when the games can't even replicate that formula from back in the day in many ways I find it all pretty lackluster.

To me these games have issues but I think budget totally shows even in their stories like you say. Nothing feels remotely as vast and polished as the classics. And I think the games could compensate some and adapt, trying to tell smaller stories and things, but they don't and in the end just feel kind of cheap. I think more of them should, for example, be Fallout 1 like. Short but fleshed out and open. I have heard Tyranny is like that but haven't played it myself yet.

I backed Wasteland 2, Pillar of Eternity, and Tides of Numenera. I have only played a handful of hours of Wasteland 2 and Pillars of Eternity, but I enjoyed the time I spent with both. I expect Tides of Numenera to be just fine.

Brian Fargo is someone I trust with my money. I also realize that Kickstarter is a platform for you to invest in the idea of this product hopefully happening and that it is pretty good.

RPG Codex, a place of some good, some bad, but a pretty great CPRG list if you're interested in one.

@artisanbreads: I think I cut PoE a lot of slack because it had been a long time since I had played the old cRPGs, but Tyranny gave me hope that they could expand more on the formula. In Tyranny there was a much more compact story line that handled the illusion of choice competently, allowed for better characterization, had some neat takes on combat (though it sorely lacked the variety of enemies that PoE was brimming with), and addressed the companion problem of PoE by making them much more present in the story, which gives me hope for the Deadfire. Someone that I can't recall put PoE in the context of it being a return to form for Obsidian, which has done much to temper my judgement of that game. The little hints of production pipeline problems and engine stability in developer streams and the documentary give credence to that theory. The fact remains though that they ensured that all of the stretch goals that were funded were included and the generally reserved nature of the Deadfire's campaign ambitions have me giddy for the sequel. Also, it's a sequel. Obsidian and Sawyer have a knack for sequels.

@fezrock: Yeah I wonder why the main stories get so bogged down. Tyranny is perhaps the worst offender in this. It was simply baffling to see my chaotic route develop into such a boring archetype, especially when juxtaposed with the quality of the companions. I think PoE has the best narrative chops that you listed. But as I run through the game for a second time, with the White March expansions included, the bad pacing becomes especially suspect. Which is a bummer because there is some fantastic side content in PoE. And yeah, the foundation is set with interesting metaphysical concepts imbued into the lore, but their actual manifestations in the content is lacking.

It's probably the best CRPG forum on the net. Too bad it's completely unmoderated and a haven for racist assholes.

Good post.

I haven't played Tyranny yet but what you have to say sounds promising to me. I also have some high hopes for these sequels to these first round of cRPGs like Deadfire and Divinity OS II. I think building on top of what they did before and hopefully more of a solid foot to make a modern cRPG from sales wise they can flesh out these games in their sequels. I hope both flesh out choice, companions, and utilize the strengths in storytelling this genre has. I really would like these games to feel like more of steps forward from old cRPGs. I think Divinity OS mechanically is the only one of these games that has felt like an interesting step forward in any way.

I think making RPGs is hard but I think it's just kind of disappointing. If you hear how Fallout came together (highly recommend this Dev Game Club interview) it also did with a small team, a small budget, and not even a long development either and turned out something awesome and at the time cutting edge.

Experienced developers shouldn't be setting made-up goals they might not be able to meet, just to gain more money from higher pledge levels on Kickstarter.

Why overpromise and then underdeliver? And developers keep getting away this stuff. Hello Games and No Man's Sky comes to my mind too (some people cared for almost a month, more than the usual week or two), but after the initial shitstorm nobody seems to care. And why should they, simply because there's nothing they can do but move onto another game (or wait for some of the promised features to be added in patches, when, maybe 6-12 months later, when the game is practically dead and buried). But hey, they've got your money & you've got (a part) of their promised game.

Shame on all of you bullshit artists.

@frytup: I think so too, they have some hardcore RPG players there. I got to learn about Space Rangers 2 there also so I owe the Codex a lot of credit. But yeah, like you said it attracts many extreme folks and part of the appeal that was the developers from Bioware and Bethesda dropping by is long since gone. Don't want to go too off topic, but I think one of the reasons why inXile became maligned is not only the PR failure and communication breakdown but that they cancelled an interview that they had lined up at Gamescom last year.

@artisanbreads: The creation of Fallout is an awesome story. Maybe I'm just having a crisis like the one Dan talks about in his review of Zelda. I really want to recapture the magic of playing Planescape and Fallout from my early days playing crpgs and should probably expect more of Obsidian and InXile in terms of game design, instead of just wanting them to perfect that worn formula. To make it worse, I can't even go back to those games because I really can't stand looking at them anymore. Ugh.

InExile has just released a statement about the shape of the game, and their plans for its future.

Basically, they're saying that a lot of the stretch goals that they were unable to have done by launch, they're going to include in free updates over the coming months. These include companions, improvements to the Crisis System (so weird spelling that word without a "Y" when speaking about video games) and something they're referring to as the "voluminous codex". Whether that's just an improved journal (the one in the game is pretty dang good as is), or something else entirely, I haven't a clue. Anyhow, they're making it sound like sizeable additions. All of this along normal-ass patches and the like, ofcourse.

So hey, if this here thread gave you a negative impression of the games kickstarter at first (as it probably should have), know that they're going out of their way to deliver on that stuff down the road. I personally think that's a real neat thing. Will give me a good excuse to replay the damn thing if nothing else.