• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Black Culture Thread |OT12| Days of Future Bans

Status
Not open for further replies.

zeemumu

Member
What about these guys The Next Men, people with special powers in a world that hates and fears them

nextmen-1294357943.jpg


They are lead by a guy that needs to wear special glasses, that is some next level shit

I keep reading the history to find out if this was a parody. Apparently not
 

Slayven

Member
I keep reading the history to find out if this was a parody. Apparently not

John Bryne is a bitter hateful old man and thought he can do things better. He did create the modern itnerpetion of superman and other things. But he is a evil shit stain of a person.
 

zeemumu

Member
John Bryne is a bitter hateful old man and thought he can do things better. He did create the modern itnerpetion of superman and other things. But he is a evil shit stain of a person.

He somehow made Cyclops worse. Now he can just see really well.
 

Slayven

Member
Worse than the goat licker?

I can't say for Goat Licker's personal life other then rumors say his writing isn't far from how he thinks.

But Bryne is on record with some fuck shit
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Byrne

Hispanic and Latino [sic] women with blond hair look like hookers to me, no matter how clean or “cute” they are. Somehow those skin tones that look so good with dark, dark hair just don’t work for me with lighter shades.
 

D i Z

Member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ry-for-halloween-blackface-costume/?tid=sm_tw

Native American leader who wants R*dskins removed wears an ironic Halloween costume. Is it that fucking tempting?


It's like raaaaaaaiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnn


Well then. Ok.


What about these guys The Next Men, people with special powers in a world that hates and fears them

nextmen-1294357943.jpg


They are lead by a guy that needs to wear special glasses, that is some next level shit

This hadn't even crossed my mind for like, two decades. I'm pretty sure I still have this is storage.

I can't say for Goat Licker's personal life other then rumors say his writing isn't far from how he thinks.

But Bryne is on record with some fuck shit
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Byrne

Dude went over the deep end a while ago. That quote list is impressive for someone that continues to be irrelevant but just won't disappear.
 

Crocodile

Member
@Kiddizzy: Ok now I actually know what you're talking about, thanks for elaborating. I disagree with almost all of it but I at least can understand what you're trying to say. A LOT of your complaints really make me wonder if you've ever crowdfunded anything before though.

1) Putting up design concepts every step of the way for approve from the fans that they have, rather than working designs for a larger base that can sustain them.
Example: SG is a great game, but for a massive chunk of potential audience it looks like ass. That's a problem. And one that could have been resolved.
As a designer myself, I'm not a fan of letting the fanbase in on design in progress.
The yes's will far out weigh the no's because you've got the wrong eyeballs on the project.
What makes them happy is almost always narrow and limited and ain't going to help the project grow.

Ok I think you have a misunderstanding of what is actually happened here. There was NO fan input into the designs of any of the characters. There was a character vote where backers could choose their favorite out of a series of already designed characters but that is no different than the variety of votes out of a set of already established concepts that happen for a ton of backer projects. Hell, I'd argue that the most broadly appealing set of characters won that vote anyway. It also did a lot to garner a lot of backers for that campaign as well. Again, this is something that is super common in crowdfunding projects. How many have you backed?

2) Opening a dialogue about design changes (red cross, panties, etc) to the fanbase gives them more leverage to whine about it than they need, and entirely too much room to be feeling some kind of way.
Of course any change needs to be explained or addressed. But leave it at that.
All of these small pockets of discontent in high traffic web areas that you'd rather reduce to anecdotal evidence eventually add up. Web searches can be the death of a project that has been under fire.

The color of the cross was changed because apparently the Red Cross has an international patent on that symbol and started breathing down Lab Zero's neck. The other stuff was changed because the design team themselves felt they over-reached a bit and wanted to tone things down. When asked if someone asked/made them make those changes, they confirmed that no - it was entirely their choice. I was around when both "events" happened and they stopped being "issues" like immediately. There is no reason to think that would negatively influence future backers for a different project. There is no long lasting controversy.

3) Even participating in discussions with the community about funding troubles & speculation about conflicts with prospective publishers that might or might not have issue with certain ethnic designs is dumb. It just doesn't fly.
Not if a team is actually looking to ever get any publisher support in the future. Certainly not when they're looking for a lifeline to keep the doors open.

Developers talking about issues they've had with publishers (note also how no names were dropped) is super common with crowdfunded projects. It's often part of their spiel for "why are you crowdfunding?" questions they get. Even IGA was like "publishers didn't give me shit when I tried to get Bloodstained off the ground!". Hell another developer for a separate game even went into that thread to talk about how they got side eye when they were trying to push their game with a Black lead.

4) Itemizing their development costs for the dlc to appease fan outrage and setting a bad precedent and baseline for themselves by cutting labor deals in the process.
It sets a minimum expectation for themselves, and a maximum in the minds of the end user.
Essentially stating how little the job can be done for and being so close to the fanbase, what they can expect from you. Worse still, what they can expect from others.

There are reasons why that's just not done. It's bad business for anyone when they need to go back to the well with rising costs and new projects.
People remember the troubles. People lose trust in them being competent.
Nobody new is giving money to a team that they remember getting bullied into releasing their financial situation to a bunch of angry keyboard jockeys.
It made them look like desperate junkies begging for cash for the next fix.
And the last thing a team needs in the middle of their first campaign is to have backs against the wall, and being strong-armed publicly by the masses into explaining costs.

Is this how you feel? Do you know anybody else who actually feels this way? Why would anybody care about any of this? Again, I have to ask you how many crowdfunding projects you follow. Itemizing costs is something many crowdfunding projects do (especially when they are asking for a lot of money) and when asked "why does X cost Y", most developers do everything reasonable to answer that sort of question. That's the expectation. Not explaining why things cost what they do is not an option for them or really any crowdfunding campaign when pressed.

5) It's also bad for everyone else in the same position that might be trying to attract the attention of that userbase coming in under these set preconceptions of cost and labor.
The only people that can get away with selling a product as the parts and labor that compose it are car dealers. They dictate the price, and have all the power to negotiate.

Yeah I'm having a hard time making heads or tails of this bit. Again, itemizing costs is super common fro crowdfunding campaigns.

All of these things signify to me a reliance upon a limited but loyal pool to sustain them, and a comfort zone that is too small for growth.
They're first crowdfunded project was a nightmare, so of course they do it all over again with the same userbase. Makes total sense.

Developers who crowdfund more than once tend to go back to the same well if they've had success. If they delivered on their promises things tend to go well for them (InXile Entertainment). When they haven't things tend to go badly (Comcept). I can only rely on anecdotal evidence, though Lab Zero clearly feels the same from the consumers they've talked to, but the majority of backers were happy with the IGG content that was delivered.

If they spent more time addressing the issues of why people aren't picking up the last good game, and less on the folks that already have, they might have had a shot with a new campaign.

It's not clear to me how they've failed to do that.The biggest potential pitfall from the last game, character designs (and even that is super subjective as a lot of people do actually like them), has already been addressed with a more broadly appealing cast (just look at the thread and you'll see most people are big fans of the designs).
 

Numb

Member
People thirsty for that Overwatch game.
Glad it's coming to console not having a good PC. Will try it if the network doesn't launch broken.

That dude Reinhardt looks real sick with his Jethammer.
Best weapon ever.
What's cooler than a chunk of metal propelled by a jet engine towards your face?
Nothing.
 

D i Z

Member
@Kiddizzy: Snip.

I actually have backed quite a few crowdfunded projects, so I'm no stranger to this being a common practice particularly in indie game development. That doesn't mean to say that it's not a rookie mistake and generally bad for the future of crowdfunding in general. As I've already said, it sets a terrible baseline and expectancy level that is hard to come from under.

I actually have quite a bit of real world experience with publicly facing large scale projects, a couple of decades worth. And I have dealt with quite a lot of marketing and PR snafu's along the way. The kind that linger in the public conscious and affect ongoing development and future endeavors.

Your defense of them from within the community is fine and dandy, but we're not talking about that. The fact remains that the new project is woefully short of meeting their goals.
And as a result they are going to be done and done. I've tried to illustrate how the navel gazing with the current fan base has left them ill prepared to engage anything larger. All of these little pockets of negativity are what prospective punters are seeing first before they even get a chance to ask for financial assistance.

Let me ask you this. Besides the questionable (in hindsight) choice of going with Indiegogo as a do or die approach, what would you say is the biggest factor in this new project being underfunded? What in their optics, in your opinion, is holding them back?
The game looks solid, and from what I've played it could really be something.
I've listed some very real business and perception issues that they have without going into their finance management, and your response to all of them is either that this is how things are done in crowdfunding (not so much really, mostly by first timers and the desperate) and evidence of things being addressed to satisfaction within the community. That's all great if the community that is already overly invested was all that was relevant to their needs, but it ain't.

I'd like to see them pull this one out. What would you suggest?


People thirsty for that Overwatch game.
Glad it's coming to console not having a good PC. Will try it if the network doesn't launch broken.

That dude Reinhardt looks real sick with his Jethammer.
Best weapon ever.

What's cooler than a chunk of metal propelled by a jet engine towards your face?
Nothing.


It does look good, but from what I've seen they haven't tackled the problem with balancing snipers very well. They've made them damn near untouchable at times.
 
How so?

I've always hated fandoms, the KH one more than most. Seeing them in an impotent and ultimately meaningless rage is actively entertaining.
hmm said:
Biogaphy: Kingdom Hearts

Location: Kingdom Hearts

Interests: Kingdom Hearts

Occupation: Kingdom Hearts
post-18879-Jon-Hamm-Yeah-Ok-gif-1dnC.gif

EDIT: Nobody is buying that.
Well..one person lol.
You ain't fooling anyone..
 

Shy

Member
People thirsty for that Overwatch game.
Fuck yeah i am. lol

Speaking of which, i know i asked this before, but i'm dying of thirst.
Do any of you guys work, or know someone that works at Blizzard that would be willing to get me into the Overwatch beta.

I'm sorry, i know this may come across as annoying, so i won't bother anyone again with this.
 

Numb

Member
Fuck yeah i am. lol

Speaking of which, i know i asked this before, but i'm dying of thirst.
Do any of you guys work, or know someone that works at Blizzard that would be willing to get me into the Overwatch beta.

I'm sorry, i know this may come across as annoying, so i won't bother anyone again with this.
dat thirst

7mil in line
 

Crocodile

Member
I actually have backed quite a few crowdfunded projects, so I'm no stranger to this being a common practice particularly in indie game development. That doesn't mean to say that it's not a rookie mistake and generally bad for the future of crowdfunding in general. As I've already said, it sets a terrible baseline and expectancy level that is hard to come from under.

I actually have quite a bit of real world experience with publicly facing large scale projects, a couple of decades worth. And I have dealt with quite a lot of marketing and PR snafu's along the way. The kind that linger in the public conscious and affect ongoing development and future endeavors.

Your defense of them from within the community is fine and dandy, but we're not talking about that. The fact remains that the new project is woefully short of meeting their goals.
And as a result they are going to be done and done. I've tried to illustrate how the navel gazing with the current fan base has left them ill prepared to engage anything larger. All of these little pockets of negativity are what prospective punters are seeing first before they even get a chance to ask for financial assistance.

Let me ask you this. Besides the questionable (in hindsight) choice of going with Indiegogo as a do or die approach, what would you say is the biggest factor in this new project being underfunded? What in their optics, in your opinion, is holding them back?
The game looks solid, and from what I've played it could really be something.
I've listed some very real business and perception issues that they have without going into their finance management, and your response to all of them is either that this is how things are done in crowdfunding (not so much really, mostly by first timers and the desperate) and evidence of things being addressed to satisfaction within the community. That's all great if the community that is already overly invested was all that was relevant to their needs, but it ain't.

I'd like to see them pull this one out. What would you suggest?

Well then I apologize for making assumptions. I'm sorry. I only argue because I don't see what they did so wrong or could have done differently in the past. Everything they've done has more or less been consistent with what other crowdfunding projects I've seen do and its really hard for me to follow the logic of someone who thinks as the hypotheticals you've outlined do. I will admit backer psychology can be weird as hell though. Unfortunately we can only rely on anecdotal evidence which can always be suspect. What I've personally seen doesn't corroborate what you say. That doesn't mean you haven't seen different (again that's the issue with anecdotes) but since I can't see the logic in some of the trains of thought you've espoused and your experiences will be just as anecdotal as mine I'm left unconvinced?

Anyway, I think the biggest issues (aside from IGG) have been coverage and that its a new IP. Most of the big videogame kickstarters have been a "direct sequel or spiritual successor to that IP you liked made by most/all of the same people who made it in the past". I think the last part is important too because even if I thought Lab Zero could do a better job at making a 2D Metroid game than Nintendo could do right now, I'm sure if Nintendo, or former Nintendo employees, put up a KS for a new Metroid like game, it would do better of the two. Also the "fuck big publisher X" narrative seems to get a lot of people to part with their money. Lots of people gave to games like Mighty No 9, Yooka-Laylee and Bloodstained because it let them say "fuck you Capcom/Microsoft/Rare/Konami!". With regards to coverage (especially at the start) most of those games got spots on big streams or feature articles (rather than small blurbs), etc. Like whenever Indivisible got a coverage boost (Youtubers play the prototype, Guest Characters announced, Jim Sterling talks about it) the money donated shoots up. It probably helps that almost all coverage of the project are almost unanimously positive.They however weren't able to get BIG streams/articles with this game but I have no idea how much of that is on Lab Zero, how much is on the media,I have no idea how hard or how much it costs to get those premium spots, etc. It's clear a lot of energy on Lab Zero's part went into making that prototype.The daily pledge amounts for most days of the campaign have actually been good compared to a lot of other major campaigns (though there were some slow spots as with any campaign). The issue was the start of the campaign (which means the back-end has to pick up the slack) not really the middle.

What can they do at this point? I'm not entirely sure. I think one more "big" announcement could push it over the top (I still think they have a shot at making it now though it will be just barely if so). It's also hard for me to say what they could have done differently during the middle. They've been doing interviews, they worked out the guest deals, they put the prototype on PSN. It would have been nice if some of that stuff came out earlier but I have no idea how hard it was for them to get this stuff done. If they can get a spot on a big stream near the end that would be great but I have no idea how hard/easy that is to do. Like I wouldn't say their campaign was run perfectly but I do think it was better run that a lot of ones out there that have succeeded.
 
People thirsty for that Overwatch game.
Glad it's coming to console not having a good PC. Will try it if the network doesn't launch broken.

That dude Reinhardt looks real sick with his Jethammer.
Best weapon ever.

What's cooler than a chunk of metal propelled by a jet engine towards your face?
Nothing.

bet the console version will be hot garbage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom