Okay, I think I got you now. The company would get the whole thing...but it would be taxed as income. It would be the same as their residuals from retail sales though, everyone's pay would stay the same. For the company, this is just getting their money back up front. Creating their budget from a virtual income. So no, it would be no different tax-wise than just working into retail from an investment. Just a lump sum up front.
It'd be a lump sum up front either way. Most developers don't really get residuals on games developed for major publishers unless the game does very well.
The contracts are usually set up that the game has to make a certain amount of money for the publisher BEFORE the developer starts getting residuals. And most games don't ever hit that amount of sales. I seriously doubt Double Fine saw much money for Psychonauts or Brutal Legend after the development was over. Maybe a little once they got the rights to Psychonauts back and put it on Steam and what not.
@KuroShiro
Well, i meant that i don't understand why he didn't start the game he's doing now with Double Fine at TTG before. I could imagine some reasons but i have no idea how valid they are, so just wondering.
@KuroShiro
Well, i meant that i don't understand why he didn't start the game he's doing now with Double Fine at TTG before. I could imagine some reasons but i have no idea how valid they are, so just wondering.
Because it's not a low-budget episodic adventure game with an existing license? Telltale has a pretty specific thing that they do, man. I'm not sure why you think they would or could accommodate Ron's vision.
It'd be a lump sum up front either way. Most developers don't really get residuals on games developed for major publishers unless the game does very well.
The contracts are usually set up that the game has to make a certain amount of money for the publisher BEFORE the developer starts getting residuals. And most games don't ever hit that amount of sales. I seriously doubt Double Fine saw much money for Psychonauts or Brutal Legend after the development was over. Maybe a little once they got the rights to Psychonauts back and put it on Steam and what not.
Yes, you are correct. I meant the company itself, which their retail portion is a set amount. I apologise, "residual" was the wrong word as this is a set amount. I wouldn't think the developer residuals in this case kick in until the income surpasses the Kickstarter investment.
Yes, you are correct. I meant the company itself, which their retail portion is a set amount. I apologise, "residual" was the wrong word as this is a set amount. I wouldn't think the developer residuals in this case kick in until the income surpasses the Kickstarter investment.
Well in this case, if they sell one copy, it's income, pretty much. This actually puts them in a much better position to make money after the fact than anything they'd done before, because they don't have to "pay back" the investors, unlike working with a publisher who gets to keep the money for themselves.
@Frogacuda
Because, if the concept was convincing, no idea if he showed it to them, they could have made an exception due to Ron Gilbert's celebrity bonus and designer vita. It might have been something new but from Ron Gilbert, not from Joe Normal. The closer the concept was to an adventure, the bigger the bonus could have been. Maybe that's just what they did and ... who knows.
Well in this case, if they sell one copy, it's income, pretty much. This actually puts them in a much better position to make money after the fact than anything they'd done before, because they don't have to "pay back" the investors, unlike working with a publisher who gets to keep the money for themselves.
If you can pull your budget out of Kickstarter or investors that want nothing more in return than a game, it's golden. It's a fantastic method. You only make money.
@Frogacuda
Because, if the concept was convincing, no idea if he showed it to them, they could have made an exception due to Ron Gilbert's celebrity bonus and designer vita. It might have been something new but from Ron Gilbert, not from Joe Normal. The closer the concept was to an adventure, the bigger the bonus could have been. Maybe that's just what they did and ... who knows.
Telltale is a pretty organized machine where people work on multiple project on certain cycles. To try to develop something that doesn't fit in with what they do means to completely disrupt the development of everything they do. They'd have to be pretty convinced it was a killer idea to do that.
This could make sense, although i thought that they wanted to establish project related teams, which of course doesn't eliminate the possibility that certain people also work on several projects as well. Are you just good in setting up hypotheses or having some closer relationships to persons being involved?
Ron Gilbert wants to do what Ron Gilbert wants to do. He came to Telltale, because they offered him creative control and a project lead position to develop a game he'd been trying to get off the ground for 25 years.
So it takes about two days to fund 100k these days, which means the 2 million dollars will be taken within this week already. If the rate maintains (within its typical variation) then chances exist that they'll exceed the 2-3 millions i once predicted and go even beyond.
But already with 2 millions you can do some pretty nice stuff.
I think I'm partially frustrated by this cause of o many people moving out of the woodwork to support this, but yet you rarely hear bout this turnout forager indie adventure developers. I know I know,these men are gods, but still.
It enables games which otherwise simply wouldn't have been possible due to a number of stupid reasons. In this case a point&click adventure game from Tim. I mean this is awesome, right?!
Chances exist that others might learn from this. Firstly, project related, which means great point&click adventures are a valid market. Not competing with the best selling games but a healthy niche. I know, we knew this already but hey not everyone seems to be this smart. Secondly, that crowdsourcing seems to be a valid option for funding games. Especially for otherwise turned down games where a fanbase exists. This might enable other cool projects as well. How much does Brian Fargo need for a new The Bard's Tale?
Small Indie developers also benefit from this in a way that they get light shed on this funding option. Problem is that especially their first project has to be convincing, like a professional/charming presentation and a convincing design. Once you've taken the first hurdles and built some reputation, things should be easier.
Come on, these are exciting times!
The digital distribution alone with all its pros. Companies like TTG with their own shop system. I mean without this there most probably wouldn't be TTG. The iTunes Store with all its possibilities. The Humble Bundles (Pay what you want, DRM free, crossplatform). Development tools are either for free or within in a affordable range.
The times never have been better for an Indie. In the 8 and 16 bit days there also was a nice time for indie like development in a way that the games weren't this complex and the expectations less high, so that you also could work alone or in a small team and you weren't competing against so many other games but you never had all these distribution options.
Maybe it's too good already because there are almost too many people making games and either they aren't this gifted or are doing it for the wrong reasons. In any case there are tons of bad and mediocre games around. By tendency they are getting more professional with each year. Just take a look at this years IGF entries, but that's mostly about the presentation. They often fail in what makes a game actually tick. If they can learn this as well then, you won't be able to play all the games anymore and on or the other true gems might get lost in a big wave of good to very good ones with all the consequences.
I think I'm partially frustrated by this cause of o many people moving out of the woodwork to support this, but yet you rarely hear bout this turnout forager indie adventure developers. I know I know,these men are gods, but still.
The thing is, it's not that many people. Only like 50,000. I'm sure a lot of those indie game sell more than that, they just don't get it handed to them up front.
THAT SAID, the writing is the most important thing to an adventure game, and when you have arguably the two best writers to work in the genre asking to return to it, that's going to carry weight that it wouldn't otherwise.
THAT SAID, the writing is the most important thing to an adventure game, and when you have arguably the two best writers to work in the genre asking to return to it, that's going to carry weight that it wouldn't otherwise.
THAT SAID, the writing is the most important thing to an adventure game, and when you have arguably the two best writers to work in the genre asking to return to it, that's going to carry weight that it wouldn't otherwise.
I disagree, puzzles first. Without puzzles you've no game. Story's jsut the thing that ties everything together and helps elevate something from serviceable to truly memorable.
Important ingredients: Puzzles, characters, dialogues, story, setting, point&click ;O), gfx&sfx where i like the style. The DIG had some great written dialogues (Orson Scott Card) and Grim Fandango was written really well. The writing is very important but it's not the only thing unless you're writing a book, make a game more like Portal from 1986 or generally a text adventure.
It's the fragrance. Maybe they should offer a boxed version as well with a small aura synthesizer included which you place right next to your computer whilst playing. Refill packages can be ordered from Double Fine's shop at any time but you never know so you better order a large package right now.
Ah this debate again. I don't think any one thing is more important than the other in an adventure game. They all must be there and they all most be done well and work together to create a pleasing adventure game. No one game element is to blame or to praise for how good a game is.
I disagree, puzzles first. Without puzzles you've no game. Story's jsut the thing that ties everything together and helps elevate something from serviceable to truly memorable.
Maybe it would be better if I said that great writing is the rarest and most valuable thing, and the one that separates good adventure games from great adventure games.
Obviously you need solid puzzle design and such, and maybe these days that's harder to come by than it once was, but if you look back at your favorite adventure games, was it really combining the toaster and the battery that made it great, or was it all the times it actually made you laugh out loud?
I dunno. Combining a toaster with a battery sounds like lousy puzzle design to me.
My favorite puzzle will always be: "That's not on fire."
I tried that frickin' fire extinguisher on everything. Well, at first it was to see if it would work. Later, it was just to hear Manny say, "That's not on fire."
Look. For an adventure game to work, you need three things.
- Plot/Story. If you have puzzles but no plot, you have a puzzle game, not an adventure. Adventure games are great ways to tell a story because of the very nature of them. You're not limited to boxy corridors or simple run-shoot-kill gameplay. You can have dialogue, you can have exposition and you can have characters. Speaking of which:
- Characters. Half the fun of an adventure game is following the character(s) around and seeing their journey. Would The Longest Journey have been half as fun without April? Would Monkey Island work without Guybrush Threepwood? You need someone to care about in an adventure game because otherwise you've no incentive to keep playing. The plot may be great and the puzzles clever, but if there's no-one caught in the middle for us to identify with, then why should we care?
- Puzzles. It's not an adventure game without them. Seriously, it's just Machinima without them. Puzzles are what make the genre, and if they're not clever and logical, then you end up with games that just frustrate you and make you walk away without seeing them through to the end. Conversely, if the puzzles are too easy, you end up with Back to the Future: The Game. It's a fine balancing act to make puzzles interesting and compelling without pissing the player off.
Adventure games need all three of these to really work. If you have two and forget the third, then you end up with a failure. No decent story? What's the point? No decent characters? How do I get in? No decent puzzles? Why is this a game?
Everything else is window dressing, and I make no apologies for saying that. Art style, Music, Voicework - you can still have a great game without those being top-notch, but unless all three of the main aspects are solid, the game's not going to be remembered fondly down the years.
My point is more that it's a lot easier to make good puzzles than to write good jokes, and when games have simplified gameplay or puzzles, it's usually by design, rather than a lack of know-how.
That depends on how skilled you are in different areas. Somebody might be extremely funny and witty and write great material but would have immense writer's block with coming up with puzzles, like me. (for the latter not the former, I'm not that funny)
Maybe it would be better if I said that great writing is the rarest and most valuable thing, and the one that separates good adventure games from great adventure games.
Obviously you need solid puzzle design and such, and maybe these days that's harder to come by than it once was, but if you look back at your favorite adventure games, was it really combining the toaster and the battery that made it great, or was it all the times it actually made you laugh out loud?
Well my favourites aren't generally the funnies (don't get me wrong now, I love Grim Fandango to bits) but I like the epics like Broken Sword and Longest Journey. Of course it still validates your point, the story sticks with you longer than the puzzles. Which is grand.
Except whilst actually playing the game the puzzle design if it's terrible, either too convoluted, bland or non-existent will leave a great impression on you, if the game's too easy or unfair it isn't fun. We can all reminisce over the story for years to come, but the reason we see the story unfold is because the mechanics appeal to us whilst playing.
Well that's what separated the Longest Journey from Dreamfall, right? I think both had interesting stories, but honestly, if people are going to criticize Back to the Future, the puzzles in Dreamfall were about on the same difficulty level. I liked the settings and music and story for both, dreadfully much, but one differentiated itself with its puzzles.
Well that's what separated the Longest Journey from Dreamfall, right? I think both had interesting stories, but honestly, if people are going to criticize Back to the Future, the puzzles in Dreamfall were about on the same difficulty level. I liked the settings and music and story for both, dreadfully much, but one differentiated itself with its puzzles.
Dreamfall makes me sad to think about, so much wasted potential.
I'd take 1,000 diarrohea glass eyeball and gangster shadow puzzles over that fighting system any day.
I also really disliked the ending. The only thing I hate more than the ending is people who say "You don't get what they were trying to do with it". Trust me, I get it, I just really didn't like it.
@Frogacuda
Let's have a try! I pick out an adventure from TTG, *closing my eyes and hovering with the cursor over the games*, TOMI, that should work.
Thinking of TOMI in a good way, the first ten things which come to my mind:
1) The monkey puzzle in the DeSinge Lab.
2) Caring about Morgan LeFlay.
3) Solving a riddle together with the good LeChuck.
4) The Credits where this great silent tune from Michael Land is playing in the background.
5) A funny Murray.
6) The wonderful dark mood in the trial and execution episode.
7) The riddle in the bar where you were playing as a dead Guybrush.
8) Being able to walk around on an island and trying to get somewhere.
9) The funny faces competition.
10) This weird machine you had to fight.
Well that's what separated the Longest Journey from Dreamfall, right?
Again, Dreamfall's gameplay is streamlined by choice in an attempt to make it more accessible to a wide audience. It's not just some inept attempt to recapture the puzzles of TLJ.
Also, good writing and good puzzles are often closely related in adventure games. It's usually about giving the player enough information to figure the puzzle out on his own, without giving him so much information that you rob him of the satisfaction of solving it. This doesn't have to be done with language and writing (for example, Machinarium, or even Portal 2 if you want to look outside the genre), but it usually is.
Looking out of the window, a photon from a distant star travelled 1.76543210 million lightyears before it got absorbed by my left eye, yummy. The older the light the better.
Again, Dreamfall's gameplay is streamlined by choice in an attempt to make it more accessible to a wide audience. It's not just some inept attempt to recapture the puzzles of TLJ.
Also, good writing and good puzzles are often closely related in adventure games. It's usually about giving the player enough information to figure the puzzle out on his own, without giving him so much information that you rob him of the satisfaction of solving it. This doesn't have to be done with language and writing (for example, Machinarium, or even Portal 2 if you want to look outside the genre), but it usually is.
It was a bad choice though . It didn't bring in new players and probably disgruntled old ones.
It was a bad choice though . It didn't bring in new players and probably disgruntled old ones.
Completely agree, but my point is just that it's harder to write good dialog than design good puzzles. Dreamfall was not about a lack of capable designers, it was just a style choice, and it was an error in judgement, not a lack of ability.
I don't think that's true. Actually great puzzles are extremely rare.
I'm not sure if it's about great puzzles as much as good ones with occasional greatness. Puzzles in adventure games boil down to the same thing a lot of the times but how they're presented adds the wrinkles about whether they're interesting.
Comments
The contracts are usually set up that the game has to make a certain amount of money for the publisher BEFORE the developer starts getting residuals. And most games don't ever hit that amount of sales. I seriously doubt Double Fine saw much money for Psychonauts or Brutal Legend after the development was over. Maybe a little once they got the rights to Psychonauts back and put it on Steam and what not.
Well, i meant that i don't understand why he didn't start the game he's doing now with Double Fine at TTG before. I could imagine some reasons but i have no idea how valid they are, so just wondering.
Because it's not a low-budget episodic adventure game with an existing license? Telltale has a pretty specific thing that they do, man. I'm not sure why you think they would or could accommodate Ron's vision.
Yes, you are correct. I meant the company itself, which their retail portion is a set amount. I apologise, "residual" was the wrong word as this is a set amount. I wouldn't think the developer residuals in this case kick in until the income surpasses the Kickstarter investment.
Because, if the concept was convincing, no idea if he showed it to them, they could have made an exception due to Ron Gilbert's celebrity bonus and designer vita. It might have been something new but from Ron Gilbert, not from Joe Normal. The closer the concept was to an adventure, the bigger the bonus could have been. Maybe that's just what they did and ... who knows.
If you can pull your budget out of Kickstarter or investors that want nothing more in return than a game, it's golden. It's a fantastic method. You only make money.
You mean Double Fine.
But already with 2 millions you can do some pretty nice stuff.
It enables games which otherwise simply wouldn't have been possible due to a number of stupid reasons. In this case a point&click adventure game from Tim. I mean this is awesome, right?!
Chances exist that others might learn from this. Firstly, project related, which means great point&click adventures are a valid market. Not competing with the best selling games but a healthy niche. I know, we knew this already but hey not everyone seems to be this smart. Secondly, that crowdsourcing seems to be a valid option for funding games. Especially for otherwise turned down games where a fanbase exists. This might enable other cool projects as well. How much does Brian Fargo need for a new The Bard's Tale?
Small Indie developers also benefit from this in a way that they get light shed on this funding option. Problem is that especially their first project has to be convincing, like a professional/charming presentation and a convincing design. Once you've taken the first hurdles and built some reputation, things should be easier.
Come on, these are exciting times!
The digital distribution alone with all its pros. Companies like TTG with their own shop system. I mean without this there most probably wouldn't be TTG. The iTunes Store with all its possibilities. The Humble Bundles (Pay what you want, DRM free, crossplatform). Development tools are either for free or within in a affordable range.
The times never have been better for an Indie. In the 8 and 16 bit days there also was a nice time for indie like development in a way that the games weren't this complex and the expectations less high, so that you also could work alone or in a small team and you weren't competing against so many other games but you never had all these distribution options.
Maybe it's too good already because there are almost too many people making games and either they aren't this gifted or are doing it for the wrong reasons. In any case there are tons of bad and mediocre games around. By tendency they are getting more professional with each year. Just take a look at this years IGF entries, but that's mostly about the presentation. They often fail in what makes a game actually tick. If they can learn this as well then, you won't be able to play all the games anymore and on or the other true gems might get lost in a big wave of good to very good ones with all the consequences.
THAT SAID, the writing is the most important thing to an adventure game, and when you have arguably the two best writers to work in the genre asking to return to it, that's going to carry weight that it wouldn't otherwise.
I don't think it's particularly arguable.
I disagree, puzzles first. Without puzzles you've no game. Story's jsut the thing that ties everything together and helps elevate something from serviceable to truly memorable.
If you don't enjoy the whole, then the game isn't very good.
You see I'll use Deadly Premonition as an example.
There are LOADS of things wrong about that game, but the overall experience is just fantastic, and its why its one of my favourite games.
Obviously you need solid puzzle design and such, and maybe these days that's harder to come by than it once was, but if you look back at your favorite adventure games, was it really combining the toaster and the battery that made it great, or was it all the times it actually made you laugh out loud?
My favorite puzzle will always be: "That's not on fire."
I tried that frickin' fire extinguisher on everything. Well, at first it was to see if it would work. Later, it was just to hear Manny say, "That's not on fire."
- Plot/Story. If you have puzzles but no plot, you have a puzzle game, not an adventure. Adventure games are great ways to tell a story because of the very nature of them. You're not limited to boxy corridors or simple run-shoot-kill gameplay. You can have dialogue, you can have exposition and you can have characters. Speaking of which:
- Characters. Half the fun of an adventure game is following the character(s) around and seeing their journey. Would The Longest Journey have been half as fun without April? Would Monkey Island work without Guybrush Threepwood? You need someone to care about in an adventure game because otherwise you've no incentive to keep playing. The plot may be great and the puzzles clever, but if there's no-one caught in the middle for us to identify with, then why should we care?
- Puzzles. It's not an adventure game without them. Seriously, it's just Machinima without them. Puzzles are what make the genre, and if they're not clever and logical, then you end up with games that just frustrate you and make you walk away without seeing them through to the end. Conversely, if the puzzles are too easy, you end up with Back to the Future: The Game. It's a fine balancing act to make puzzles interesting and compelling without pissing the player off.
Adventure games need all three of these to really work. If you have two and forget the third, then you end up with a failure. No decent story? What's the point? No decent characters? How do I get in? No decent puzzles? Why is this a game?
Everything else is window dressing, and I make no apologies for saying that. Art style, Music, Voicework - you can still have a great game without those being top-notch, but unless all three of the main aspects are solid, the game's not going to be remembered fondly down the years.
Well my favourites aren't generally the funnies (don't get me wrong now, I love Grim Fandango to bits) but I like the epics like Broken Sword and Longest Journey. Of course it still validates your point, the story sticks with you longer than the puzzles. Which is grand.
Except whilst actually playing the game the puzzle design if it's terrible, either too convoluted, bland or non-existent will leave a great impression on you, if the game's too easy or unfair it isn't fun. We can all reminisce over the story for years to come, but the reason we see the story unfold is because the mechanics appeal to us whilst playing.
Dreamfall makes me sad to think about, so much wasted potential.
I'd take 1,000 diarrohea glass eyeball and gangster shadow puzzles over that fighting system any day.
I also really disliked the ending. The only thing I hate more than the ending is people who say "You don't get what they were trying to do with it". Trust me, I get it, I just really didn't like it.
Let's have a try! I pick out an adventure from TTG, *closing my eyes and hovering with the cursor over the games*, TOMI, that should work.
Thinking of TOMI in a good way, the first ten things which come to my mind:
1) The monkey puzzle in the DeSinge Lab.
2) Caring about Morgan LeFlay.
3) Solving a riddle together with the good LeChuck.
4) The Credits where this great silent tune from Michael Land is playing in the background.
5) A funny Murray.
6) The wonderful dark mood in the trial and execution episode.
7) The riddle in the bar where you were playing as a dead Guybrush.
8) Being able to walk around on an island and trying to get somewhere.
9) The funny faces competition.
10) This weird machine you had to fight.
Also, good writing and good puzzles are often closely related in adventure games. It's usually about giving the player enough information to figure the puzzle out on his own, without giving him so much information that you rob him of the satisfaction of solving it. This doesn't have to be done with language and writing (for example, Machinarium, or even Portal 2 if you want to look outside the genre), but it usually is.
It was a bad choice though . It didn't bring in new players and probably disgruntled old ones.
Completely agree, but my point is just that it's harder to write good dialog than design good puzzles. Dreamfall was not about a lack of capable designers, it was just a style choice, and it was an error in judgement, not a lack of ability.
I'm not sure if it's about great puzzles as much as good ones with occasional greatness. Puzzles in adventure games boil down to the same thing a lot of the times but how they're presented adds the wrinkles about whether they're interesting.