D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
that's fair enough, I suppose.
I don't really know enough about what the game is yet, but everything I've been pitched has essentially been a high-level concept rather anything, for lack of a better phrase, practical. If you're Tim Schafer and Double Fine, I can follow you down that sort of rabbit-hole. If you're a start up, it worries me. "It has everything a 'real' AAA game should have" seems to have translated down to "we've thrown money at voice-direction and mo-cap, and we've spent a lot of time thinking about 'themes'".
This is their first project as a team. We have no proof that they can can effectively build interesting game systems on-budget and on-schedule when working together. Why not start with a smaller, perhaps less-ambitious project to gain some public-trust first? It's not as sexy, but when you come at me with a pitch that is almost completely high-level/conceptual, at least I'd be willing to trust you.
It might be indicative of my personality that I find it very hard to trust people who pitch me ideas from the position of "here's my grand idea" or "here's this obvious space people say they want that hasn't been filled", and then neglect to mention the reasons others have avoided that space, and how they can avoid the pit-falls others may have previously observed. If I can't see a strong low-level basis for an idea, be it a proven business model or gameplay system(s), then I'd hope the person pitching me the idea and the team building the game have a damn strong track-record.
I respect the ambition. I respect the creativity. Romantically, I wish the game nothing but success. Practically, I'm not going to help fund it based on this pitch.
I don't really know enough about what the game is yet, but everything I've been pitched has essentially been a high-level concept rather anything, for lack of a better phrase, practical. If you're Tim Schafer and Double Fine, I can follow you down that sort of rabbit-hole. If you're a start up, it worries me. "It has everything a 'real' AAA game should have" seems to have translated down to "we've thrown money at voice-direction and mo-cap, and we've spent a lot of time thinking about 'themes'".
This is their first project as a team. We have no proof that they can can effectively build interesting game systems on-budget and on-schedule when working together. Why not start with a smaller, perhaps less-ambitious project to gain some public-trust first? It's not as sexy, but when you come at me with a pitch that is almost completely high-level/conceptual, at least I'd be willing to trust you.
It might be indicative of my personality that I find it very hard to trust people who pitch me ideas from the position of "here's my grand idea" or "here's this obvious space people say they want that hasn't been filled", and then neglect to mention the reasons others have avoided that space, and how they can avoid the pit-falls others may have previously observed. If I can't see a strong low-level basis for an idea, be it a proven business model or gameplay system(s), then I'd hope the person pitching me the idea and the team building the game have a damn strong track-record.
I respect the ambition. I respect the creativity. Romantically, I wish the game nothing but success. Practically, I'm not going to help fund it based on this pitch.