City of Titans, (Project Pheonix) Reboot.

randell4444

Last thread got derailed by an ongoing COH vs CO arguement. So lets avoid that in this one by saying the one thing both sides agreed on: Both were/are good games .


This thread is dedicated to sharing information on and keeping up with new developments on the MMORPG in development: City of Titans, currently available on kickstarter. I will be diligent and provide everyone with as much information as I can, with the assistance of any others who also keep tabs on the game as it develops.

If you have questions, ask. If you want to know how X or Y is planned to work, ask. If you don't know much about it, I ask only that you try to learn more about it before having strong opinions regarding it.

So now the exciting stuff!! The current kickstarter for this game in development, should you wish to know more or help them out:

[Removed by TrailTurtle.]

Of note: The video showcased is merely a concept video. The game is not actually far enough along to have a gameplay video but kickstarter requested a video of some sort for the page. So they took what they had and cobbled something together to make kickstarter happen.

Also of note: The kickstarter is just to fund the purchasing of the tools to make the game with. They itemize out the money on the kickstarter page, so read it if it concerns you.

Update!!

Woot!! Original goal met, new stretch goals =

$350,000 (Achieved) = Android port of the Avatar builder
$400,000 = IOS port of the Avatar builder at launch
$450,000 = Mac OS version of the game at launch



Update 2: Interview with some interested questions asked. Highly recommend reading.

http://www.onrpg.com/articles/editorial/city-of-titans-kickstarter-interview/

randell4444

Taken straight from the kickstarter for informational purposes:

This is the idea for the game, paraphrased.

The Phoenix Project is the effort to bring new life from a world laid waste, the name given to an idea that would not be silenced, an idea whose time has come. The idea that a game is more than just a game or a revenue stream. It is a community, a home. Missing Worlds Media, Inc. was the first element of this idea, founded by the project to provide the foundation, the structure for that effort.

Missing Worlds Media presents City of Titans, the superhero MMORPG being developed by The Phoenix Project in the spirit of City of Heroes. Our goal is to deliver a unique massively multiplayer online roleplaying game, created from the community of a lost universe, to build a new community for a new world. A brave new world containing a wealth of player choices, from costumes to powers, it continues the traditions found in its spiritual predecessor, daring to reach for new innovations no other game will touch, while standing firmly on the feel and spirit of the old. Players will be able to choose their own adventure, tell their own tales, and have their own agency in a superhuman world.

Essentially it's inspired by City of Hero's but they wish it to be different and push new boundaries as well. They don't just want to revive a dead game, they want to create new life that people who played the old game would probably like. (Jury's out on that, I'll see how I like it when I play it one day...but it does make me excited). Or better yet, in their words:

The Phoenix Project is none of these things. It is a new home for the heroic spirit, but not a clone or replica. We have an opportunity here to build a modern game, respectful of the play style, lessons, and fun of the old game, while taking advantage of the more than ten years of industry development since our spiritual predecessor started development.

randell4444

More info, a bit more tangible this time:

Players will find their choices built around a flexible framework. Instead of the typical class based system found in some games, or the skill based system found in others, our focus has been on attitudes. How do you want to do, what you want to do? Pick that, and we give you all the powers we can. Players pick a primary power, with that power determining the options available for their secondary powers. Then as you progress, and level up, you grow these powers as well as gain new ones. And even further, we let you customize those powers with a signature style, your Mastery, that enhances and alters how all your powers behave.

That approach, a flexible framework, is how we approached most design decisions. Powers are split into effect and animation, allowing us to mix and match to offer more to the player. You pick "Fireball." You then pick how you want to throw this fireball, from the hand, mouth, a wand, or a 12-gauge shotgun. Same power, different look, all through the framework designed with our custom Socket System. Even two people with optic blasts can have their own unique look, depending on the powers chosen, the colors selected, the effects added and the animations picked for the power.

The goal in the end is to give you the ability to create your character. Want to be a vine swinging Amazon warrior who attacks by using her hair as a whip? We're working on that. Want to be the wizard warrior with a pet raven who can spit fire? It?s in the cards.

But, powers and characters do not an RPG make. There needs to be a story. Unlike a traditional CRPG, MMORPG's are notable for growing over time. What we have done is conceptualize what we want our game to be like at 5-years post-release, and worked backwards to our initial beta release, planned for in mid-to-late 2015. By having that years-in-the-future target, we can design the systems, stories and plotlines now with that in mind.

To build these plots, we have plans to build the tools necessary. But, our plans for these tools is to make them available for you to create your own stories, plots and schemes as well, and to share them with other players. The era of user generated content is here. Rather than try to integrate a system on top of the system used by the developers, our plan is to create a system which is used by both players and developers. Show us your creativity.

We will make the framework, you will bring it to life.

These are the ambitious goals they are aiming for.



Also, and this is important: They have already stated that if the game ever goes under for any reason they will give it to the community. The last thing they want is if something happened for the game to go the way of COH and simply cease to exist with people still interested in it. This is why they had to do it via independent funding such as kickstarter. To avoid publisher strings.

chaelk

to be blunt(and completely tactless)
who cares... not reserved.

randell4444

chaelk wrote: »

to be blunt(and completely tactless)
who cares... not reserved.

I think I'll just let them speak for themselves just as you have cast your vote as not caring by replying. Your honesty is appreciated though.

Straight form the Kickstarter:

If the customer does not want what is being offered, they simply find somewhere else to spend their money. But, as these other offerings have shown, people know what they want. And thanks to Kickstarter, they can speak directly to the studios. Gone are the days of conventions past, when publishers would taunt the audience. ?Do you want Megaman? Show us twenty dollars!? And while the audience, their customers, would wave money in the air, it never came.

$265,000+ in 4 days. People are voting.

themightyzenith

randell4444, I believe it was partly because of your attitude that the last thread was closed.....let's hope you can behave this time.

Also, maybe you can use "edit post" and add info to your original post instead of posting three times in a row.

randell4444

themightyzenith wrote: »

randell4444, I believe it was partly because of your attitude that the last thread was closed.....let's hope you can behave this time.

Also, maybe you can use "edit post" and add info to your original post instead of posting three times in a row.

Indeed I believe it was partly because of all involved. From the off topic nature to the disagreements between people, to claims on each and every side. Which is why I would prefer to avoid this very type of thing in this new thread. I believe it was referenced in the OP.

So please don't go down that road again? I'll just take your jabs on the chin as it were.

themightyzenith

randell4444 wrote: »

Indeed I believe it was partly because of all involved. From the off topic nature to the disagreements between people, to claims on each and every side. Which is why I would prefer to avoid this very type of thing in this new thread. I believe it was referenced in the OP.

So please don't go down that road again? I'll just take your jabs on the chin as it were.

FYI...I never posted on that other thread. Also, you never laid any blame at your own door in the OP.
Your lack of self-refection and OTT defensiveness speaks volumes.

Perhaps you're not the best person to promote the new project that you are promoting here.

I, for one, am not against discussing this new project. However, I certainly would not be willing to donate any money towards it while it is so 'up-in-the-air'.

If it makes it to an actual launch then I will check it out. If it has the costume and powers customisation that we have here in CO, as well as decent graphics and sound AND a full-on superhero feel, then I may stay. However, there are many other criteria to consider.

I'll wait to see if it happens. At the moment it's anyone's call.

Jab!

quasimojo1

A fool and his money are soon parted.

joybuzzerx

As long as the characters look more along the lines of Tony Daniel, Jim Lee, Jaime Tyndall and less like TSW, I'll give it shot

decorumfriends

Whereas if they look anything like Jim Lee, I'll probably hate it.

Will never understand the appeal he has. Scratchy lines and poor design skills.

zahinder

I insist on style on Rob Liefeld!! I need a pouch for my tiny feet, another for spare vertebrae, another pouch filled with more pouches...


Ok, more seriously, I wish them luck because the supers mmo genre needs more.

I do think the whole 'successor to CoH' angle is ... misleading, but since I don't care about fidelity to CoH, I'll just roll my eyes and move on.

I remain extremely leery of all volunteers and lack of solid experience. If there is a later Kickstarter after that situation has changed, maybe I'll donate.

jennymachx

zahinder wrote: »

I do think the whole 'successor to CoH' angle is ... misleading, but since I don't care about fidelity to CoH, I'll just roll my eyes and move on.

I'd only regard it as a "successor" to CoH if some of the ex-Paragon devs were on board with the project.

gfnotaku1

themightyzenith wrote: »

Jab!

*Brofists your jab. Purpose ruined.*

That said, the art style is very.. mm.. You have to see the livestreams with RocketCat to see what they look like. It's comic-y. VERY Comic-y.

And the devs are very nice, as is the community.



this however is the shining knight. Currently there are only 18 combinations planned out of a a possibility of 64 (56 if you remove redundant pairings like Melee/Melee and Support/Support) combinations. Adding in the different primaries and secondaries, the animations paired with them (yep. You'll be able to pick what animations you want. Moreso than CoX allowed.) and the theme of the abilities (basically, PowerSet/Animation/Theme; so it'd be like EnergyBlast/Magic/Light or Melee/MartialArts/Electtricity).. yeah.. hello customization HEAVEN!

randell4444

themightyzenith wrote: »

FYI...I never posted on that other thread. Also, you never laid any blame at your own door in the OP.
Your lack of self-refection and OTT defensiveness speaks volumes.

Perhaps you're not the best person to promote the new project that you are promoting here.

Blame is at everyone's door including mine. If you are involved in drama of any kind you share blame no matter how blameless we might think we are, because drama takes multiple people and they can all stop their involvement in it. This includes me, and this means I made my mistakes as well, but is not the focus of this thread regardless of you continuing to bring it up. You are not doing your own position any favors.

Now, I'm asking you again very nicely, please stop. Please. I refuse to fight with you and I do not wish to have to call a mod. Please take your personal grudge elsewhere.

I, for one, am not against discussing this new project. However, I certainly would not be willing to donate any money towards it while it is so 'up-in-the-air'.

If it makes it to an actual launch then I will check it out. If it has the costume and powers customisation that we have here in CO, as well as decent graphics and sound AND a full-on superhero feel, then I may stay. However, there are many other criteria to consider.

I'll wait to see if it happens. At the moment it's anyone's call.

Being critical of a game is something that honestly doesn't happen enough these days. I appreciate that fully and I wish I saw more of it. For me it's a little different, I realize my risk by pledging. However I personally believe that you should vote with your money on what you want, even if you are taking a risk.

That is more pertinent than ever these days with indies, steam, and kickstarter actually severely threatening the industry and the big publishers. Indies have become a very large part of the current gaming industry in large part due to steam and kickstarter, these are exciting times that are providing competition for the big publishers and I wish to support that.

But, how much you are willing to risk and when is everyone's personal judgement. It's all about how important the idea is to you that not only the game happens but that the publishers continue getting stiff competition from indies that are honestly making them look bad these last couple years.

It hits home close on this one for many. This is a chance for those interested to not only potentially reclaim a playstyle they have missed that isn't represented in the industry currently, it's also a chance to show the publishers how much of a mistake it is to neglect or cancel an MMORPG with interest in it still. (without giving it to the players that is)


So it's a bit complex, my personal reasoning. YMMV. I didn't used to think this way when I was younger, but I understand the industry and the current economic climate far better than I used to back in the day. More importantly I actually care about it and choose where I spend my money as wisely as I can.

randell4444

zahinder wrote: »

I insist on style on Rob Liefeld!! I need a pouch for my tiny feet, another for spare vertebrae, another pouch filled with more pouches...


Ok, more seriously, I wish them luck because the supers mmo genre needs more.

I do think the whole 'successor to CoH' angle is ... misleading, but since I don't care about fidelity to CoH, I'll just roll my eyes and move on.

I remain extremely leery of all volunteers and lack of solid experience. If there is a later Kickstarter after that situation has changed, maybe I'll donate.

Then let us bear the burden of support for the time being. We will do our best to get it far enough along for you to have the chance to evaluate it later in a more fleshed out state. Then you can make a more informed decision . Hopefully one day we will be brothers in arms so to speak on a new and fun game .

Each project is different, this is how the industry of America came to be and indeed there are many difficulties. Sometimes it goes bust, that's a risk people take by investing. But sometimes things go well too. For your own particular community the game Fighting is Magic will likely be an example of that. Despite the attempt from Hasbro to shut it down Lauren Faust herself helped to keep the game alive and threw her support behind it.

It's hard,it's challenging, it's tough. But it's created 75% of the things we know and love today. All the current big companies were once tiny companies struggling to survive. Turnover was and is a very real thing in the industry, it's not just isolated to indies and community funded. Ask THQ.​​

themightyzenith

gfnotaku1 wrote: »

*Brofists your jab. Purpose ruined.*

Purpose was humour/sarcasm...purpose achieved :-)

randell4444 wrote: »

Now, I'm asking you again very nicely, please stop. Please. I refuse to fight with you and I do not wish to have to call a mod. Please take your personal grudge elsewhere.

lol...I have no grudge. Call a mod if you like, I see no reason to fear. Now, by all means please have the last word

gfnotaku1

themightyzenith wrote: »

Purpose was humour/sarcasm...purpose achieved :-)

Damn.. these heroes are getting craftier. NO MATTER, victory shall be mine!

jonsills

If it isn't going to be like CoH, then the CoT community had best get in front of the rumormongering, or there are going to be a lot of disappointed players come launch day.

Because every mention I've seen has seized on that "in the spirit of CoH" phrase to mean that this is in fact a revival of CoH, the same game under a different label. Unless you can manage to redirect the message, I foresee a PR disaster.

gfnotaku1

jonsills wrote: »

If it isn't going to be like CoH, then the CoT community had best get in front of the rumormongering, or there are going to be a lot of disappointed players come launch day.

Because every mention I've seen has seized on that "in the spirit of CoH" phrase to mean that this is in fact a revival of CoH, the same game under a different label. Unless you can manage to redirect the message, I foresee a PR disaster.

Let me be the first to clarify. CoT IS NOT a revival of CoH. The devs know that to do such would cost loads in terms of IP purchasing. They also know that CoH had many problems. What they are doing is bringing what we loved about CoH and heavily improving on it. There is talk of referencing CoH with memorials and such within the game, but that's as far as it goes.

There IS a game that's basically going to be a recreation of CoH called "Heroes and Villains", but it's not affiliated with CoT or the Phoenix Project. The only similarity so far is that both have their central city named "Titan City".

The whole "In the spirit of" means the devs' attention to the game and their involvement with the community, from what I've come to understand.

ashensnow

gfnotaku1 wrote: »

Let me be the first to clarify. CoT IS NOT a revival of CoH. The devs know that to do such would cost loads in terms of IP purchasing. They also know that CoH had many problems. What they are doing is bringing what we loved about CoH and heavily improving on it. There is talk of referencing CoH with memorials and such within the game, but that's as far as it goes.

There IS a game that's basically going to be a recreation of CoH called "Heroes and Villains", but it's not affiliated with CoT or the Phoenix Project. The only similarity so far is that both have their central city named "Titan City".

The whole "In the spirit of" means the devs' attention to the game and their involvement with the community, from what I've come to understand.

Jon seems to understands this. What he is suggesting is that the devs make sure that everyone does.

jonsills

ashensnow wrote: »

Jon seems to understands this. What he is suggesting is that the devs make sure that everyone does.

Ash has the right of it. I am well aware that this is not in fact CoX redux; however, I've seen a number of mentions of this Kickstarter (most notably a Facebook posting from AFK Tavern, a food/drink/gaming venue in Washington state) that seem to believe this is in fact a literal rebirth of the older game. (They also seem unaware of the existence of CO, a fact I put down to the total lack of advertising on Cryptic's part, but that's a side issue.)

gfnotaku1

Ah. I see then. Well I suppose the only cure for that is to pass the truth around and tell people to actually read up on the forums.

*shrug* Not much else you can do.

zahinder

' What they are doing is bringing what we loved about CoH and heavily improving on it.'


Which is what, exactly?

How is that fundamentally different from 'hey everyone, we're doing a new supers game and trying to make it really flexible'?

Until someone articulates that, it's going to come across as devs unsure of what they are doing or trying to manipulate people into supporting an effectively completely new game.

Either option is bad.

kojirohellfire

I'm only going to wish the CoT developers good luck. It's going to be very challenging to get a project like this off the ground. But it sounds like they're getting most of their ideas worked out which is good and probably smooth out the process.

Then again, not everything turns out exactly as planned. So we'll see.

zahinder

Although, again, let me reiterate that I love some of the ideas. Flexible powers and power animations/fiddly bits are AWESOME and, IMO, absolute musts for future western Supers MMOs.

meedacthunist

decorumfriends wrote: »

Whereas if they look anything like Jim Lee, I'll probably hate it.
Will never understand the appeal he has. Scratchy lines and poor design skills.

He was just better than most of nineties, so his art looked best in comparison.

Still, imho Larsen and Breyfogle are better.

Lee vastly improved later, though.

kojirohellfire

I like how Larsen goes for a Kirby-esque artstyle these days. He's a great guy too, he actually listened to a suggestion I gave to him on his message board. He was having trouble keeping his book, Savage Dragon, monthly because of his duties as Image's publisher at the time, so I suggested that he go bi-monthly for the time being.

He actually did it.

randell4444

jonsills wrote: »

Ash has the right of it. I am well aware that this is not in fact CoX redux; however, I've seen a number of mentions of this Kickstarter (most notably a Facebook posting from AFK Tavern, a food/drink/gaming venue in Washington state) that seem to believe this is in fact a literal rebirth of the older game. (They also seem unaware of the existence of CO, a fact I put down to the total lack of advertising on Cryptic's part, but that's a side issue.)

I really don't know what more you can do than state it plainly in the kickstarter honestly. People either choose to read it or they don't, you cannot make people learn anything. All we can do is spread accurate information and correct the information when it is inaccurate.

Unfortunately when people get an idea in their heads, informed or not, they tend to cling to it. Sometimes even in the face of facts.

zahinder

Well, when people keep talking about 'continuing the traditions of CoX' and keeping the feel and style, what exactly are people supposed to think?

Either CoT is like CoX, or it isn't. And people are going to keep wondering how alike it is so long as the devs keep bringing it up.


This really is starting to sound like articles of faith, stuff that is known but cannot be explained.

drgmstr

I'll just throw my two cents in about how I feel about CoT: It all reminds me of The War Z Controversy.

kemmicals

I'm starting to think there's a bit of a disconnect between the "dev team" and your marketing guys. Please get your advertisement guys (If you have any) to sort this stuff out if you're having issues with people misinterpreting the designers' intentions.

randell4444

zahinder wrote: »

Well, when people keep talking about 'continuing the traditions of CoX' and keeping the feel and style, what exactly are people supposed to think?

Either CoT is like CoX, or it isn't. And people are going to keep wondering how alike it is so long as the devs keep bringing it up.


This really is starting to sound like articles of faith, stuff that is known but cannot be explained.

Being like something and being a remake of something are two different things.

For instance if you were to say the same thing about making a new game only with CO as the inspiration you would likely be pursuing a freeform hero building system and a flexible and varied costume builder because those are the defining characteristics of CO.

There are a great deal of things that you could change and still build off of what you think made X or Y game great. You also take some of failings of that game to heart. Again taking CO's case it would be the teamwork aspect of things being a bit weak.

But even if you were to pick say, half a dozen defining characteristics right down to the pace of gameplay you could still make a radically different game.



To illustrate how one fundamental change can alter the look/feel of a game drastically take a look at League of Legends vs Smite. They are both essentially the same type of game almost to a T. However the control scheme and view is drastically different and radically alters your play experience. A minor difference is the self built lore of one game vs the mythological origins of the other game.


The goal when building a game inspired upon another is merely to make fans of the other game feel at home when they play it. Like it's partially familiar territory even when it's not. Kind of like WOW vs RIFT. Anyone who played WOW felt like they were playing some overhaul of WOW when playing RIFT. It was a familiar feel even though it was drastically different.

I don't think that COT is going to be as close to COX as Rift was to WOW. But we shall see.


Personally though, I think it's a waste of time to argue one side or another or make wild guesses as to how close it will be. That's really beyond the scope of anyone's knowledge right now, including the devs. Making a game is like writing a book, it has a way of evolving even while you are making it. COX was once going to be freeform for example, they changed mid-development cycle. Then Cryptic came and made that original idea here. I'll just accept that it's supposed to have the spirit, the same feel, of the old game and I'll judge for myself how I like what they come up with.

IGN article on the COX design philosophy change here: http://www.ign.com/articles/2003/08/21/city-of-heroes-diary-volume-2

Fair enough?

randell4444

drgmstr wrote: »

I'll just throw my two cents in about how I feel about CoT: It all reminds me of The War Z Controversy.

To be clear, do you mean that it sounds like a giant misleading cash grab? Because IIRC that's what War Z was. Or rather Infestation Survivor Stories. They tried to change names to avoid the controversy.

drgmstr

randell4444 wrote: »

a giant misleading cash grab?

Exactly. So far it is all that I am seeing, or envisioning of this project.

randell4444

drgmstr wrote: »

Exactly. So far it is all that I am seeing, or envisioning of this project.

Brass tacks: could you explain your reasoning on this being a cash grab in detail and grounded in hard logic?

I mean details too. Like how they are going to pull an amount of money really worth pulling for the amount of people involved and how it would be worth it considering the investment and opportunity costs involved with such a low price point. Because $320,000 is alot for one person with no expenses. $320,000 split between many people minus expenses/lost time adds up to peanuts. Because $320,000 split between 50 people with no expenses is only $6,400, hardly worth the time, effort, lost hours, and risks of being labeled a pariah.

War Z by comparison was developed in 6 months copying another game heavily and used the Eclipse Engine, which is free to the best of my knowledge. They also ripped things directly from other games to further save time/expenses. The most famous of which is the League of Legends EULA. They charged $15 up front, then used an abusive micro-transaction system, put a "no refunds " clause in the EULA, and directly lied about what would be in the game on the games final description page in the steam market.

I admit being more curious than anything at exactly what led you to such a harsh comparison. Something that I've missed in the research I did before dropping my pledge.

quasimojo1

randell4444 wrote: »

I mean details too. Like how they are going to pull an amount of money really worth pulling for the amount of people involved and how it would be worth it considering the investment and opportunity costs involved with such a low price point. Because $320,000 is alot for one person with no expenses. $320,000 split between many people minus expenses/lost time adds up to peanuts. Because $320,000 split between 50 people with no expenses is only $6,400, hardly worth the time, effort, lost hours, and risks of being labeled a pariah.

So you're saying they're immediately dividing up the money between all of the participants? Because otherwise that argument doesn't make sense. Normally in a business situation there is only 1 or 2 people that have authority over the finances, and if you're saying it couldn't possibly be a "cash grab" because $320K isn't enough money for anyone to want to bother with, I'm going to have to disagree.

Personally I don't contend it's an intentional scam, but I think the Kickstarter is basically going to finance some people's hobbies for a year or two, until the money runs out and/or turnover overwhelms the project and it fizzles out.

You know, before things like Kickstarter, people that wanted outside investment for their business generally had to provide some things like: a business plan, pro forma, schedule of deliverables, and sometimes even collateral or equity. Not to mention proof of skin in the game -- principals that have invested a chunk of their own money to show good faith. What hard facts do you have about this venture that makes you think it's a good investment? Do they even have a business plan? A physical location? A historical track record? Any assets at all? Is it even clear what they're promising to deliver by 11/2015?

vitalityprime

I don't understand why people are having such a hard time with CoT being a "spiritual successor" to CoH.

"A spiritual successor, sometimes called a spiritual sequel, is a successor to a work of fiction which does not build upon the storyline established by a previous work as do most traditional prequels or sequels, but nevertheless features many of the same elements, themes, and styles as its source material."

There is nothing wrong or incorrect with CoT being mentioned as a spiritual successor to CoH...at this point.

I also think they need to get started on everything before they can actually come out and say what is, or is not, going to be like CoH.

Either way...complaining about them using the "spiritual successor" title is ridiculous at this point.

joybuzzerx

decorumfriends wrote: »

Whereas if they look anything like Jim Lee, I'll probably hate it.

Will never understand the appeal he has. Scratchy lines and poor design skills.

Way to ignore the other artists mentioned Should I have added Michael Turner to help clarify what I meant?

Don't want to see awful TSW or Elder Scrolls look characters.

meedacthunist

I wish City of Titans best luck.

I don't have too much faith in this project. It may succeed, but chances for failing are really high no matter good will and determination.

Valiance has better chances for success, but given it's graphic stylisation and writing - it's of no interest for me. It goes too far into realism which is not the best choice for superhero setting. It may succeed, it may be a good game, but in the end not very interesting for me. Time will show.


With CoT also only time will show. I'll wait with opinion when I'll see more ready tech demo, something closer to final graphic style.
What is now is very basic.

Also, about superhero games in general.

I do not believe that going pure MMO route is best choice these days. MMO market is bloated.
I'd like to see something like NWN1 or 2 but with superheroes. A single player with toolset and possibility for multiplayer persistent worlds.

Anyway, best luck. Honestly.

decorumfriends

meedacthunist brings back memories of gigantic impossible hair and pouches pouches pouches:

He was just better than most of nineties, so his art looked best in comparison.

Well, sure, he was the best guy over at the original Image...or as Charles Emerson Winchester once put it "akin to being the finest ballerina in all of Galveston".

Still, imho Larsen and Breyfogle are better.

Well, yeah, Larsen kind of weirded me out in that group. He didn't seem to belong stylistically. Because, y'know, he could actually draw and had storytelling skills.

Lee vastly improved later, though.

All I've seen of him of late is a bunch of costume redesigns for NuDC. No thank you. I won't say bad, but definitely not my cuppa.

'Course, I'm old and probably stuck in a Neal Adams mentality rut.

decorumfriends

joybuzzerx only hit a nerve:

Way to ignore the other artists mentioned

No, no, no slight. I'm just a little Lee-phobic. :biggrin:

Should I have added Michael Turner to help clarify what I meant?

Or maybe the late Mike Wieringo? I think I know what you're looking for.

Don't want to see awful TSW or Elder Scrolls look characters.

Well, no, no, I won't argue with THAT. The general look of the characters is one of the places I'm hoping they adhere closest to CoX, just with a lot better graphics. And fingers.

As mentioned, I'm an old Bronze Age fan with a Neal Adams style preference. I like my heroes to look fake "real".

drgmstr

quasimojo1 wrote: »

So you're saying they're immediately dividing up the money between all of the participants? Because otherwise that argument doesn't make sense. Normally in a business situation there is only 1 or 2 people that have authority over the finances, and if you're saying it couldn't possibly be a "cash grab" because $320K isn't enough money for anyone to want to bother with, I'm going to have to disagree.

Personally I don't contend it's an intentional scam, but I think the Kickstarter is basically going to finance some people's hobbies for a year or two, until the money runs out and/or turnover overwhelms the project and it fizzles out.

You know, before things like Kickstarter, people that wanted outside investment for their business generally had to provide some things like: a business plan, pro forma, schedule of deliverables, and sometimes even collateral or equity. Not to mention proof of skin in the game -- principals that have invested a chunk of their own money to show good faith. What hard facts do you have about this venture that makes you think it's a good investment? Do they even have a business plan? A physical location? A historical track record? Any assets at all? Is it even clear what they're promising to deliver by 11/2015?

This is what I was basically trying to get through. I feel that it is too early to determine that CoT sounds as good as it sounds right now and what Kickstarter is planning. I do though wish them luck but as a customer it doesn't spark my interest 'yet'.

randell4444

quasimojo1 wrote: »

So you're saying they're immediately dividing up the money between all of the participants?

No, I'm asking him to explain things. I'm not actually proposing anything or claiming anything myself. That was a suppositional thing, not assumed to be 100% accurate as I'm aware that 1 person could take the money and run, which is why I mentioned many factors.

Personally I don't contend it's an intentional scam, but I think the Kickstarter is basically going to finance some people's hobbies for a year or two, until the money runs out and/or turnover overwhelms the project and it fizzles out.

The same could be said for any business that fails, in fact it's even said about the really large ones sometimes. But it's how every business is and especially how it begins. Valve actually makes a very very very good living in the industry doing exactly what you said down to a T. It's how they organize themselves in fact, self selected interest, self promoted ideas, everybodies hobbies.

The small game industry is almost completely made out of people's hobby games. Some of them are stellar, some not so much. We have to be savvy consumers and take responsibility for our own purchases or both or either side will rip us off. That's just how it is and I don't know a way to fix that.

You know, before things like Kickstarter, people that wanted outside investment for their business generally had to provide some things like: a business plan, pro forma, schedule of deliverables, and sometimes even collateral or equity. Not to mention proof of skin in the game -- principals that have invested a chunk of their own money to show good faith. What hard facts do you have about this venture that makes you think it's a good investment? Do they even have a business plan? A physical location? A historical track record? Any assets at all? Is it even clear what they're promising to deliver by 11/2015?

I agree with you to a large degree, but the unfortunate fact is we see how that gameplan turned out. I don't agree that either side is better, indie developed with less assurances or big business developed.

Rathar I think both are integral to keeping the other in line. Indies succeed where business fails and helps keep businesses honest and competitive. Big business succeed where indies fail and help have more reliable and stable output in general. Of course exceptions in both areas regularly turn this idea on it's head, but the rule seems to stand firm despite the exceptions.

We need both IMO.

randell4444

drgmstr wrote: »

This is what I was basically trying to get through. I feel that it is too early to determine that CoT sounds as good as it sounds right now and what Kickstarter is planning. I do though wish them luck but as a customer it doesn't spark my interest 'yet'.

I'm actually cynical, nothing is ever as good as it sounds and I want to know how it will fail. However, I have to keep in mind that if I use that for my decision making all the time I will save money but lose out on so much more.

Sometimes you have to be willing to put forward your word and possibly your money in an idea, even if you believe there is a potential for failing. Risk is a way of life. It's all about taking calculated risks and following the ideas you believe in, but not blindly.


I'm totally supportive of you taking a wait and see approach and not believing that it is as good as it sounds, but I think calling it a cash ripoff right now is pretty pre-mature. I've seen nothing to indicate that as of yet. So hedge your bets, wait for it to impress you. Say it doesn't seem like a game you trust to deliver on the amount of gameplay that they are aiming for. Just don't call it a cash grab and compare it to War Z . That's a little far with little to support it's validity.

biffsmackwell

drgmstr wrote: »

This is what I was basically trying to get through. I feel that it is too early to determine that CoT sounds as good as it sounds right now and what Kickstarter is planning. I do though wish them luck but as a customer it doesn't spark my interest 'yet'.

What I was told from someone on the project is that the Kickstarter is there to raise funds strictly for software licensing fees. No "employees" are going to be paid with this money, it seems. Now, if they far exceed their goal, people will probably get paid, but it's probably not going to be much, divided amongst so many people.

This is the part that worries me most about this project. If this is the only money that the project is going to have, I don't think the game is ever going to make it.

They didn't really make it clear that the funding was just for their software expenses and such. The way they present the thing, it looks like "This is our project, we want this much money to make it."

It looks like it's already been funded. Can they do another "Please give us more money so we can pay our employees" Kickstarter? I thought established and funded projects could not do Kickstarters for the same project.

vitalityprime

biffsmackwell wrote: »

They didn't really make it clear that the funding was just for their software expenses and such. The way they present the thing, it looks like "This is our project, we want this much money to make it."

.

This is directly from their kickstarter page.




""People have asked what the plan for the money raised with this Kickstarter.

We have been working together for over a year now. During this time, various tools have been tested, telling us what works, what doesn?t and what we need.

Our first expense is the cost of the Kickstarter itself. This goes to various companies such as Amazon, to Kickstarter, as well as the cost of the perks and add-ons. This comes to about 10% of the total.

Then there are taxes, which we estimate can run us up to 12% of the total.

So, before anything else, we?re out $70,000.

Since we are developing the game using the Unreal Engine, and the Kickstarter counts as revenue, we owe Epic Games, the company which makes the Unreal Engine royalties. That comes to about $70,000, as well.

We?re rounding up, of course, and estimating based on the best numbers we have available. By rounding up, we buy margin in case an unexpected cost, tax or fee enters the picture.

This cuts $140,000 right off the top, leaving $180,000 to actually build the project.

That $180,000 is mostly going straight to software.

Autodesk's Maya and 3DS Max. They?re not cheap, and we need them to do the work. Each of them has strengths and weaknesses, and we need at least 24 copies for the art and tech teams to be able to do their jobs. There are several different versions, each targeting different levels of needs, and the 24 total copies are split between the various members to their need, based on the tasks they have.

We?ll need multiple copies of a few tools like zbrush, Allegorithmic, 8DIO, Photoshop and Illustrator.

Then we have the costs for the website servers and bandwidth. The more you love us, the more expensive it?s going to get.

And, finally, a little cash to put a tax lawyer, book keeper and legal professional on retainer. Purely fee for service, but they will pay for themselves in troubles solved and money saved.

There are a few smaller items, such as RAM for some rendering, some 3D mice, drawing tablets, depending on individual artist needs.

Anything that makes us produce better and faster."

biffsmackwell

Yeah, I read that. Kickstarters I've seen raise money for the entire cost of the projects. Meaning, they have to spend their money on software licenses and such, and also pay their employees.

It's all presented in a very strange fashion. The video shows what progress they've made with the game. Most of the main body of the text talks about the game. Then in the last part, they're like "This is what we're going to spend our money on." Their video should have been "Look at this prototype stuff. We need the software to take this from prototype to real whatevers." The body of the Kickstarter should say "We need the money to buy the software to make all this stuff."

Instead it's presented as "Check out our game, we're making it, thanks for helping us."

To be succinct, why didn't they put their goal much higher, and then say, at the bottom, "This is how the money splits up. The first $320,000 goes to licensing fees. Then this much goes to our employees. And then this goes to that."

To me it reads like once they hit their goal, they've got their expenses for software and such out of the way, and the rest of the money is all up in the air for whatever. It reads like you're just funding one part of the project, and the rest will be funded elsewhere, or not funded at all - just a bunch of volunteers.

I guess it's just too different from the other Kickstarters I've seen, and gives me the wrong impression.

kelplankton

It's really not that different from most kickstarters. The big difference here is that we're just not going to be paying the volunteers working on the project with the Kickstarter funds themselves. Heck, a lot of kickstarters aim for less than they actually need and just hope that people back them beyond that point. We didn't do that. There are also a lot of kickstarters that are mostly finished, and seek funding for PART of their project. You can see a lot of these around that site. Typically they have some pretty substantial, polished looking gameplay to show off, and the money they need is covering things like online distribution, advertising, publicity, and maybe hiring on some QA testers or additional artists for the final stretch of content. We're not one of those. We're just starting out. We figured out what we needed to cover licencing, legal fees, taxes, and programs/hardware, and we went forth seeking that money.

And now we've reached that goal! Which is very exciting.

As for other funding sources and doing things like paying employees, we have other routes that are open to us than just Kickstarter. And unfortunately I can't talk about them other than to say that, right now. You can find a lot of post-mortems on sites like Giantbomb.com discussing this stuff with people behind some successfully Kickstarted games. We're in a similar situation to some of those. To give more details would be to put some of those offers in jeopardy so I've got to stay quiet about it.

I see a lot of people saying "why so little? why not ask for more?" and the answer is this was the BARE MINIMUM we needed to be able to produce the game. If we get more, we can use it for additional hardware, software, and other tools to produce content even faster and make it look even better. There's plans for any potential excess funds, believe me. We just haven't laid them out there because until this morning we weren't fully funded. There's also ways we'll be able to generate income with the project as we move forward, which will supplement the Kickstarter funds and allow us to keep the team together and working on the game.

You'll see more information about what's coming next, and what will happen with money above and beyond our goal, sometime soon in the next couple updates.

It's healthy to be skeptical, especially when it comes to spending your money, and I don't begrudge anyone for it. I just hope I can help provide the missing information people might be looking for about City of Titans, to explain anything that might be confusing or hard to understand if you're not thoroughly familiar with the Kickstarter process and what happens outside of KS itself that has an impact on Kickstarted projects.

biffsmackwell

Thanks, you've pretty much cleared up the things I wanted to know.

kelplankton

Happy to help! Additionally if anyone else has questions or concerns (well, ones I'm cleared to answer) I'd be happy to do so.