Support NeoGAF

[Dremark]

I'm curious, how many of those that backed the game and are against a Wii U version would have still done so had they known a Wii U version was planned?

It was pretty heavily implied there was a WiiU or at least a version for a Nintendo platform in the stretch goals. I don't think too many people following the project can claim ignorance of it.

But on the other hand no one is locked in until the campaign ends so they can pull funding if they view it as an issue.

 

[hemtae]

Wait, Durante of all people?

For what it's worth, this is what he said about it but that was before they said a different studio was handling it.

I will reduce my pledge to the minimum if a Wii U version is reached. Not because I hate the Wii U (that's ridiculous, it's the only "next-gen" console I own), or because I'm concerned about the financial return of such a move (why would I care?) but because promising a port to any platform not officially supported by the engine they are going to use makes me question their focus on providing the best possible game -- rather than getting funding out of the most possible people and worrying about "details" like technical viability later.

The reason I was confident in the technical quality of this project -- despite considering the developers far from technical Wizards -- was that they were using a great engine (UE4) on platforms which are officially supported by it and offer enough headroom to forgive some mistakes. With Wii U (or any other port to something lower-end) that goes out of the window.

You're saying you're going to pull money if a port is greenlit on the hypothetical basis that somehow its mere existence instantaneously destroys the project integrity

No. I said I would reduce my pledge, because the port makes the project less focused. A reduction is not a "pull", and a loss of focus is not "destroyed integrity".

I still haven't seen an argument that additional platforms don't reduce the focus of development. The best case scenario is an after-the-fact port by an external studio, but even that could influence design decisions (like e.g. the skills in Diablo 3 were designed not to require accurate positional play out of consideration for a later console port).

 

[MagnaderAlpha]

I was expecting backlash at first, never came, thought it there wasn't going to be any, now there is. Fucking gamers man.

The extremely fickle nature of gamers is why, most of the time, we can't have good things. Nobody can just sit back and enjoy the ride. Everything has to be scrutinized to hell and back. Good news is great, until people start to pick at it and find something they don't like, and everybody does, thus flows the hyperbole like a raging river.

 

[Eusis]

For what it's worth, this is what he said about it but that was before they said a different studio was handling it.

Ah, I forgot that last part, but that specific example is more about a difference in control schemes and how to accommodate that. I wonder if anything but visual scalebacks will be necessary for this, the biggest issue that's obvious is that Igavanias have had some colossal bosses that could push higher end hardware further than 99% of the game, but size is kind of arbitrary for 3D and can be addressed subtly by Armature with minimal if any involvement from Inticreates.

 

[Nintendojitsu]

If I knew a Wii U version of Bloodstained would have elicited such a response, I would have endorsed it earlier. The reactions to it are entertaining.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

For what it's worth, this is what he said about it but that was before they said a different studio was handling it.

Look, I respect Durante and his super human ability to fix broken games but that is just petty as all hell.

 

[Ghostmaster]

Look, I respect Durante and his super human ability to fix broken games but that is just petty as all hell.

Why? It's his money. Kickstarter is all about trust and faith in the developer. If he no longer trusts in the ability of the developer to deliver the product he expects he has every right to reduce his pledge.

 

[Toad King]

Why are people saying a port of UE4 is so farfetched for Wii U? The engine was designed to scale down to smartphones and people are worried a console will somehow magically not be able to handle it, let alone a port being made by a developer who almost exclusively does ports?

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

Why? It's his money. Kickstarter is all about trust and faith in the developer. If he no longer trusts in the ability of the developer to deliver the product he expects he has every right to reduce his pledge.

Good on him. His reasoning is still petty if not downright stupid and short sighted.

 

[hemtae]

Good on him. His reasoning is still petty if not downright stupid and short sighted.

I don't think the comparison to Diablo 3 is 1:1 but the reduced focus on creating the product he wants as grounds to reduce the pledge seems sound to me.

 

[spliced]

For the sequel the stretch goal should be "3 Million or else it's coming to the WiiU."

 

[Dremark]

For the sequel the stretch goal should be "3 Million or else it's coming to the WiiU."

I realize you're joking but if they make this into a series I genuinely hope they find it themselves, particularly if it's actually owned by the company that seems to be the publisher.

 

[Instro]

Why are people saying a port of UE4 is so farfetched for Wii U? The engine was designed to scale down to smartphones and people are worried a console will somehow magically not be able to handle it, let alone a port being made by a developer who almost exclusively does ports?

The hardware inside the WiiU is older tech than what is available in any recent smartphone. Outdated hardware and architecture means it does not support up to date versions of APIs, shader model, etc...thus no official support for UE4.

 

[AmethystEnd]

Good on him. His reasoning is still petty if not downright stupid and short sighted.

Really? So you can provide him with this?

I still haven't seen an argument that additional platforms don't reduce the focus of development.

If not, I'd say you're the one who's short sighted.

He even gave a specific example.

The best case scenario is an after-the-fact port by an external studio, but even that could influence design decisions (like e.g. the skills in Diablo 3 were designed not to require accurate positional play out of consideration for a later console port).

Do you have a counterpoint? Or anything at all that invalidates this concrete example explaining why he feels like he does?

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

I don't think the comparison to Diablo 3 is 1:1 but the reduced focus on creating the product he wants as grounds to reduce the pledge seems sound to me.

Except we don't know if "the focus on creating the product he wants" is being reduced. Hence why he's being short sighted.

 

[AmethystEnd]

Except we don't know if "the focus on creating the product he wants" is being reduced. Hence why he's being short sighted.

So him believing that the focus is reduced is short sighted. But you believing the focus isn't reduced isn't? Even though he's the one showing precedent for his view?

That's totally reasonable.

 

[Toad King]

The hardware inside the WiiU is older tech than what is available in any recent smartphone. Outdated hardware and architecture means it does not support up to date versions of APIs, shader model, etc...thus no official support for UE4.

UE4 can run with a minimum of GLES 2.0 (technically less with WebGL). I don't have knowledge of what the Wii U has graphics API-wise but I'm positive it has something equivalent or better, especially since it already has UE3 ports.

 

[Dremark]

Except we don't know if "the focus on creating the product he wants" is being reduced. Hence why he's being short sighted.

Nobody knows for sure either way. I have a different outlook on it than he does, but I'm not going to act like he's wrong. He's making a different assumption than I am based on the same information.

Also is there any particular reason why he specifically is being examined here? If he's literally the only one who said he'd drop or lower funding I suppose it makes sense, but if he's facing scrutiny because people know who he is that seems kind of screwed up.

 

[AmethystEnd]

Nobody knows for sure either way. I have a different outlook on it than he does, but I'm not going to act like he's wrong. He's making a different assumption than I am based on the same information.

Also is there any particular reason why he specifically is being examined here? If he's literally the only one who said he'd drop or lower funding I suppose it makes sense, but if he's facing scrutiny because people know who he is that seems kind of screwed up.

Thank you for understanding what it means to have a reasonable opinion. I don't care who Durante is, and honestly I don't care what platforms this game comes out on as long as I get to play it, but I take issue with people being unreasonable and uncompromising when they have no support for their stance.

 

[hemtae]

Except we don't know if "the focus on creating the product he wants" is being reduced. Hence why he's being short sighted.

Well focus (or probably more like money now) is being shifted towards porting UE4 to the Wii U instead of new gameplay features or polish. So in that sense focus is diluted. But we're just retreading arguments from pages ago and I don't want to keep speaking for him. I probably should not have dug up those old quotes.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I'm not sure I understand the Diablo 3 argument. How would positional play better on PC, exactly? If anything, positioning is easier to manage on console thanks to the dodge button.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

So him believing that the focus is reduced is short sighted. But you believing the focus isn't reduced isn't? Even though he's the one showing precedent for his view?

That's totally reasonable.

You're getting real defensive over this. But whatever, if he wants to reduce his pledge on the grounds that he believes "more platforms = less focus" that's fine he's a grown man, can do whatever I'm not his mom. But it's still a belief. We've seen zero evidence thus far that indicates that IGA is going to hold the game back because of the Wii U. The PS4/Xbone/PC are still going to be the main platforms, it's still going to be running on UE4 on those platforms, they have next to nothing to do with Wii U development and it's a freaking Metroidvania. In what areas would that be held back and/or lose focus. The size of the game? He's already said it's going to be bigger than his previous games? The gameplay? It's a Metroidvania. The mechanics should translate fine on Wii U. The graphics? Maybe, but it's not like they're going to issue some sort of parity to make all versions the same. There's no reason too. Until we see actual gameplay, I'm keeping this stance. Durante could do whatever he wants but I see no reason why the game would "lose focus" for a version of a game being farmed out that was only made because there's demand for it. Until there is evidence that Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night is being held back for the sake of a Wii U version, Durante is incredibly short sighted in this regard.

Well focus (or probably more like money now) is being shifted towards porting UE4 to the Wii U instead of new gameplay features or polish. So in that sense focus is diluted. But we're just retreading arguments from pages ago and I don't want to keep speaking for him. I probably should not have dug up those old quotes.

That assumes the game is being developed on UE4 on Wii U. My guess is that Armature will port the game to a different engine and come out later than the other versions.

 

[RM8]

Well focus (or probably more like money now) is being shifted towards porting UE4 to the Wii U instead of new gameplay features or polish. So in that sense focus is diluted. But we're just retreading arguments from pages ago and I don't want to keep speaking for him. I probably should not have dug up those old quotes.

We don't know if UE4 is being ported to WiiU (I lean towards no, but we'll see I guess) and a separate studio is handling it anyway - a studio paid with the money earned in part by the WiiU stretch goal. A stretch goal that we have known from day one.

 

[foxuzamaki]

Nobody knows for sure either way. I have a different outlook on it than he does, but I'm not going to act like he's wrong. He's making a different assumption than I am based on the same information.

Also is there any particular reason why he specifically is being examined here? If he's literally the only one who said he'd drop or lower funding I suppose it makes sense, but if he's facing scrutiny because people know who he is that seems kind of screwed up.

In my case, Durante knows a lil more even if its not alot about game development than the average person on gaf, so his post comes off to me anyways as somewhat knee-jerkish, ofcourse its revealed to me that armature wasent revealed before he made his comment so that most likely had something to do with it, but I dont think he thought a veteran in the industry would hinder his project so easily if he didnt have plans in place for such occasions.

 

[AmethystEnd]

I'm not sure I understand the Diablo 3 argument. How would positional play better on PC, exactly? If anything, positioning is easier to manage on console thanks to the dodge button.

You're misreading. He's saying the "skills" were designed to not require positional play. Meaning, (for example) you couldn't drop an AoE at a specific point with a mouse click because consoles wouldn't be able to do it.

-Snip-

You're calling me defensive, but I'm not the one calling people petty without backing up my opinions with solid reasoning. Since no one has any way of knowing how the development of the game will go, all we can do is argue based on precedent. You've given no concrete examples. I'm not trying to convince you Durante is right. Like I said, I simply have an issue with unreasonable people, and you're not gonna change.

 

[Spyder_Monkey]

You're calling me defensive, but I'm not the one calling people petty without backing up my opinions with solid reasoning. Since no one has any way of knowing how the development of the game will go, all we can do is argue based on precedent. You've given no concrete examples. I'm not trying to convince you Durante is right. Like I said, I simply have an issue with unreasonable people, and you're not gonna change.

This is the final thing I have to say about this. At this point I can only assume you copied my post, edited it so it doesn't take up half the page and said "your being unreasonable" without actually reading my post. I know that I would be met with criticism when making my statements, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable in my arguments.

 

[AmethystEnd]

This is the final thing I have to say about this. At this point I can only assume you copied my post, edited it so it doesn't take up half the page and said "your being unreasonable" without actually reading my post. I know that I would be met with criticism when making my statements, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable in my arguments.

I read it. Me calling you unreasonable has nothing to do with your arguments, which I think are perfectly fine. Me calling you unreasonable has everything to do with you labeling people who hold the opposite views "petty" and "shortsighted" like your view is somehow more valid than theirs even though you have equal amount of evidence (and in this case, less, again based on precedent).

 

[Alo81]

WiiU stretch goal is sort of a bummer. It either means that WiiU will constrain the current versions, or WiiU will get a stripped down, non-UE4 version. Either outcome isn't really desirable. Makes WiiU sort of seem like a monkey on the games back. Assuming they outsource, I hope the WiiU version doesn't prevent them from doing things they might want with the higher power systems. Not that I don't want WiiU owners to play the game, I just don't think tacking on another system that doesn't match the specs for the game is a smart move.

 

[hemtae]

We don't know if UE4 is being ported to WiiU (I lean towards no, but we'll see I guess) and a separate studio is handling it anyway - a studio paid with the money earned in part by the WiiU stretch goal. A stretch goal that we have known from day one.

We have? I haven't been keeping up with the campaign super well but I thought it was a resounding "eh" for Wii U at the start.

 

[AmethystEnd]

We have? I haven't been keeping up with the campaign super well but I thought it was a resounding "eh" for Wii U at the start.

There's some playful wording somewhere in the campaign text that hints at it. Don't recall what it is or where it is in the text. It's not an explicit admission of a Wii U version, but people have thought from day one that Wii U was likely because of it.

 

[Chindogg]

We have? I haven't been keeping up with the campaign super well but I thought it was a resounding "eh" for Wii U at the start.

It was hinted in the FAQ from day 1.

I do chuckle to see we have so many business analysts and project managers on this board that somehow think IGA and his team doesn't already have the proper requirements and implementation down to do a Wii U port. This isn't some amateur making "my first indie game" this is IGA we're talking about here.

What reason has IGA given you guys to freak out about shit we know nothing about at this time?

 

[Scrooge McDuck]

You're getting real defensive over this. But whatever, if he wants to reduce his pledge on the grounds that he believes "more platforms = less focus" that's fine he's a grown man, can do whatever I'm not his mom. But it's still a belief. We've seen zero evidence thus far that indicates that IGA is going to hold the game back because of the Wii U. The PS4/Xbone/PC are still going to be the main platforms, it's still going to be running on UE4 on those platforms, they have next to nothing to do with Wii U development and it's a freaking Metroidvania. In what areas would that be held back and/or lose focus. The size of the game? He's already said it's going to be bigger than his previous games? The gameplay? It's a Metroidvania. The mechanics should translate fine on Wii U. The graphics? Maybe, but it's not like they're going to issue some sort of parity to make all versions the same. There's no reason too. Until we see actual gameplay, I'm keeping this stance. Durante could do whatever he wants but I see no reason why the game would "lose focus" for a version of a game being farmed out that was only made because there's demand for it. Until there is evidence that Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night is being held back for the sake of a Wii U version, Durante is incredibly short sighted in this regard.

And by then it's already too late. Look, of course there is zero evidence that Wii U would hold the game back. There is also no evidence to the contrary, however. We are putting our money in something that doesn't exist yet. At this stage it's all about faith for the developer. If that faith waver, it's reasonable to reconsider the amount one is pledging to the cause.

Your own belief is also based on nothing concrete but faith and positive thinking. You don't really have any ground to belittle other people's opinion on it.

 

[Dremark]

Thank you for understanding what it means to have a reasonable opinion. I don't care who Durante is, and honestly I don't care what platforms this game comes out on as long as I get to play it, but I take issue with people being unreasonable and uncompromising when they have no support for their stance.

Same. Ever since it became obvious that Castlevania at least as the series I followed it as was done for I've been waiting for IGA to move on and get back to making games.

I am happy that it's coming out on my platform if choice, but as I stated in previous threads I'd get this game on whatever I have to, even if I had to get an iOS device, Mac or Xbone (The current platforms I don't currently own).

In my case, Durante knows a lil more even if its not alot about game development than the average person on gaf, so his post comes off to me anyways as somewhat knee-jerkish, ofcourse its revealed to me that armature wasent revealed before he made his comment so that most likely had something to do with it, but I dont think he thought a veteran in the industry would hinder his project so easily if he didnt have plans in place for such occasions.

He is who he is. He has the opposite viewpoint than I do but it's simply a matter of him coming to a different conclusion from the same facts. It really comes down to a matter if whether or not you trust them to have the game at it's full scope with the funding received and whether or not you trust them to not make compromises in the original versions to accommodate the down port.

Personally I trust them on this and really doubt many compromises should be made. I can't really fault anyone for thinking otherwise because it's really a matter of trust rather than fact.

As far as Durante goes I think it's more that he (or anyone else for that matter) shouldn't be focused on. We're discussing the ideas and for the most part those are separate from the people involved (I do get your point about him being somewhat more knowledgable though).

Well focus (or probably more like money now) is being shifted towards porting UE4 to the Wii U instead of new gameplay features or polish. So in that sense focus is diluted. But we're just retreading arguments from pages ago and I don't want to keep speaking for him. I probably should not have dug up those old quotes.

I don't think it makes much of a difference at this point, the thread feels like it's going in circles now. I'm hoping something new and exciting gets announced soon so we can all just move on as this has really been looked at from every angle I can imagine at this point.

 

[AmethystEnd]

It was hinted in the FAQ from day 1.

I do chuckle to see we have so many business analysts and project managers on this board that somehow think IGA and his team doesn't already have the proper requirements and implementation down to do a Wii U port. This isn't some amateur making "my first indie game" this is IGA we're talking about here.

What reason has IGA given you to freak out about shit we know nothing about at this time?

Eh, you'll see the same concerns and conversations about literally every multiplatform game on the board. Doesn't matter who the dev is nor what their credentials are.

 

[Dremark]

We have? I haven't been keeping up with the campaign super well but I thought it was a resounding "eh" for Wii U at the start.

There was a question regarding a Nintendo version and it stated something along the lines of it not being planned but there was a rumor of something deep in the basement.

 

[CaviarMeths]

It was hinted in the FAQ from day 1.

I do chuckle to see we have so many business analysts and project managers on this board that somehow think IGA and his team doesn't already have the proper requirements and implementation down to do a Wii U port. This isn't some amateur making "my first indie game" this is IGA we're talking about here.

What reason has IGA given you to freak out about shit we know nothing about at this time?

I think there might be a little more cause for worry if IGA was known for directing CV games. But he isn't. He's known for designing and producing, which probably gives him much more insight into the business side of things. He has a better idea of not only how to design a game from the ground up, but also how to make that work with budget and scope in mind.

This isn't his first rodeo.

 

[hemtae]

There was a question regarding a Nintendo version and it stated something along the lines of it not being planned but there was a rumor of something deep in the basement.

Yes there was apparently. Post 31 in this thread has the text. I guess that's what I get for just backing on Iga's name alone and then skimming the updates.

 

[Dremark]

Yes there was apparently. Post 31 in this thread has the text. I guess that's what I get for just backing on Iga's name alone and then skimming the updates.

It's not really a big deal. Imo they are being as transparent as possible and you're fully able to lower or drop your pledge. I don't think they initially wanted to make a big deal about the WiiU version initially as it was pretty questionable if it would make it so they just put the hint in so people would understand why it wasn't nessesarily coming.

Now that it's on the table everyone knows though as they should.

 

[BudokaiMR2]

UE4 can run with a minimum of GLES 2.0 (technically less with WebGL). I don't have knowledge of what the Wii U has graphics API-wise but I'm positive it has something equivalent or better, especially since it already has UE3 ports.

It's not about whether it can run or not. I think it more has to do with whether or not it is officially supported by Epic (which it is NOT) as that means even if you are able to somehow get it to work on your own, they will give you absolutely zero support.
This can obviously be a huge problem.

 

[Durante]

I really don't like my arguments being discussed when I'm not part of the conversation. To fully understand my position you'd need to read all ~20 or so posts I made on the topic in this thread.

It comes down to the fact that the reason I was very convinced of the technical quality of this project from the start is that it seemed very focused, and that they made a big technical decision (using UE4 on only the platforms that run it best) that I approve of very much. If they had e.g. said they use Unity, I would have pledged at a lower level from the start, as I have had bad experiences with the framerate stability of pretty much every larger-scale Unity game on PC -- and I really don't want that with a CV-like title. And the same goes if they'd have said that they'd put the game on 360, or PS3, or Vita, or indeed Wii U from the start. I'm not pettily against any given version, I simply adjust my pledge based on how much I believe in the project -- like everyone should on Kickstarter -- and that is based on the information I get.

I also really don't want to be associated with all the "it doesn't make financial sense" or "Wii U will be dead by the time it's out" arguments. I don't give a shit about that one way or the other (I'm not investing in Deep Silver), the only thing I care about is the game.

You're misreading. He's saying the "skills" were designed to not require positional play. Meaning, (for example) you couldn't drop an AoE at a specific point with a mouse click because consoles wouldn't be able to do it.

Yeah, that's exactly it. I was saying that Diablo 3 would certainly have a console version because of the way the skills were designed before the game was even out on PC. (I was a huge DIablo 2 fan so I followed 3's development pretty closely).

 

[Rajack]

So you'd deny me a copy of the game on my chosen platform "because reasons" Durante? To say I am offended is an understatement. Your statement is small-minded and spiteful, whatever your true intentions are they are irrelevant now because your actions are exclusionary in nature.

 

[YianGaruga]

So you'd deny me a copy of the game on my chosen platform "because reasons" Durante? To say I am offended is an understatement. Your statement is small-minded and spiteful, whatever your true intentions are they are irrelevant now because your actions are exclusionary in nature.

He's not denying you anything. How did you even get that from his post
There is no doubt at this point that a Wii U version will be made

 

[ShogunDarius]

i'm more concerned with who owns the ip

 

[Durante]

So you'd deny me a copy of the game on my chosen platform "because reasons" Durante?

No, I'm not backing any given project so that you get the game you want, I'm doing it because I expect the game I want in return.

If that offends then, well, c'est la vie.

 

[AmethystEnd]

So you'd deny me a copy of the game on my chosen platform "because reasons" Durante? To say I am offended is an understatement. Your statement is small-minded and spiteful, whatever your true intentions are they are irrelevant now because your actions are exclusionary in nature.

He's not denying you anything. How did you even get that from his post

I will be incredibly shocked if Rajack was even 5% serious.

Edit: I am incredibly shocked.

 

[Rajack]

No, I'm not backing any given project so that you get the game you want, I'm doing it because I expect the game I want in return.

If that offends then, well, c'est la vie.

You'll be getting the game you want either way, a Wii U port will never affect that. If you can't understand that then the problem still lies with you. I supported the kickstarter the moment I saw that stretch goal.

 

[DaSorcerer7]

By the time this over they'll have raised enough to develop ports for all platforms. Nothing stops this train

 

[Giolon]

Who would've expected all this drama over a Wii U stretch goal of all things. I've seen it all.

Game concept looked awesome before. Game concept looks awesome now. The same team of pros are making it.

I'm still all in. What other people decide to do is entirely up to them, no matter what their name or reputation is. Why should they have any undue influence on anyone else?

 

[Durante]

You'll be getting the game you want either way, a Wii U port will never affect that. If you can't understand that then the problem still lies with you. I supported the kickstarter the moment I saw that stretch goal.

How dare you deny me the focused game I want! I'm deeply offended by this behavior.

(Why is it OK for you to pledge based on the platforms the game is made for, but not for me?)

 

[Alo81]

You'll be getting the game you want either way, a Wii U port will never affect that. If you can't understand that then the problem still lies with you. I supported the kickstarter the moment I saw that stretch goal.

You have no evidence to back this up, and there is some very realistic evidence to prove that this could not be the case.