next »

[arrogancy]

I think they've been about as explicit as they can be about it being rubbish.

That page says:

Meanwhile, we decided to move a little bit further than making up a bizarre concept and product's weird name. Stalin vs. Martians is also a good real-time strategy game. Probably one of the best in years and years. You can quote us on that.

And it also says:

Our game is unique. Trashy and absolutely over-the-top, arthouse kitsch production in its finest. With a good technical basis and some healthy gameplay innovations.

So, no, they aren't presenting it as a purposefully bad game; they're presenting it as a wacky crazy game with good gameplay underneath.

[Oddbob]

I always find context is pretty important and bless you if you can take any of the aggrandisement seriously on that page because I can't. Well done though, you got me bang to rights there.

Now then, about why it's a problem SvM making money and getting some exposure. Why is that a problem? I know, I know, I keep banging on about this but I find it fascinating and I'm genuinely intrigued as to why it's an issue.

It's not stealing money from you, it's not stealing exposure from you, no-one gets hurt here so I'm a bit miffed as to where it creates an issue y'know. Sure, it makes a good soundbite but I'm sort of hoping that there's something here I'm not able to understand.

It's a bit like this: I don't like The Path. I think it's broken and adolescent and have said so. Do I think ToT shouldn't be allowed to sell The Path or don't deserve any of the money, publicity and exposure they have for it? Damn, no I don't. I genuinely wish them all the success in the world because just because I don't like something doesn't mean it should be crushed (unless it's Rick Dangerous, obv.) and I'm comfortable enough with my own self to feel I can hold an opinion that others don't.

I reserve the right to say that I personally don't like it, I reserve the right to discuss with others my reasoning for not liking it but it's not taking anything from me just by existing or y'know, sneaking into my house and beating my cat up or something.

Does SvM hurt you somehow just by its very existence? Do you feel it is taking something from you or from people you love? What? Why is it a problem?

You might think I'm being snarky but I'm not. I'm genuinely fascinated as to what the issue could be here. Tell me up, man. Tell me up.

A wise man once had this to say about XNA community games:

It’s fine if you don’t like the game. We knew a lot of people wouldn’t. But part of the point of Community Games is to make whatever type of game you feel like making, and in this case, we wanted to go back to 1983 for a little while to a time when you weren’t exactly sure you were going to be able to make a simple jump over some spikes because you didn’t build up enough running room yet. In our next game, we’ll do something completely different. That’s part of the fun of the freedom of publisher free indie gaming design.

My bolding there, obv. Surely if that applies to you, Mr Arrogancy, then it can apply to Mezmer too?

 

[Melly]

SvM is probably making money because you can't refund it, as far as I know. Lots of people were fooled into thinking the game would be good, there is no demo to try it out so they bought it, and from the comments I read most were disappointed. Like Yahtzee said, the trailers paint people's expectations a shimmering gold, only to realize when they bought the game that they'd been seeing the light reflecting off a stream of piss.

EDIT: Yahtzee did originally say that about demos, but I'm certain that the reason they didn't release a demo of SvM is because it'd be easy for people to see the flaws, and their sales wouldn't be as good.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Did Yahtzee review this game? Sounds fun. Will look for it.

As for why it's a problem, take a look at the Steam forum for the game that I linked to earlier -- a lot of the folk there who bought it sound pretty dissatisfied with their decision.

[Oddbob]

Did Yahtzee review this game? Sounds fun. Will look for it.

As for why it's a problem, take a look at the Steam forum for the game that I linked to earlier -- a lot of the folk there who bought it sound pretty dissatisfied with their decision.

Well, as I said above, I was kinda massively dissatisfied with buying The Path and regretted paying my own money for it. I'm pretty certain I'm probably not alone there. Should we stop ToT doing what they do also?

Sounds like a pretty dangerous metric to use, that.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Well, it's not like I'm saying games shouldn't be made or allowed to be sold if most people who buy it want refunds or something, so I don't see what dangers are involved. I think it's a good idea to honor refund requests if someone isn't satisfied though -- did you ask for one?

[Oddbob]

Nope! I might regret spending out the money on something I didn't enjoy but I don't want to discourage folks from (pun really not intended) venturing from the beaten path of standard design. I also don't believe in taking back something I've given freely of my own choice solely on the grounds of "Well, that wasn't for me".

If that £7 means £7 into the kitty to help ToT carry on doing what they're doing, I'm cool with that. If my tenner in the Mezmer kitty does the same for them, I'm cool with that too.

In short, I like being challenged and having my opinions challenged, be that with a good game (IMO) or a bad game (IMO).

[Traveller]

What other commercial games out there come even close to Stalin Vs. Martian's level of dumb wackiness? I'd say Stalin Vs. Martians is one of the first games of its kind (with a budget (albeit a small budget)). Often the first of its kind is going to be more than a little rough around the edges.

I remember an RTS from the mid-late 90s called "This Means War!".  Its cutscenes did, in fact, start to approach this level of dumb wackiness.  It was also somewhat less playable.  My memories are a bit faded and it never worked very well, but it did have wackiness, and it did try for good mechanics, but failed horribly--they made some very bad design decisions and it looks like they ran out of budget/time too.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

@oddbob I can agree with that, I agree about the challenging opinions part. But I still fear that someone might, like, play stalins vs martians as their first ever indie game, and be put off by it and be hesitant to give other indie games a shot because they think the shoddiness is universal to them. But that's probably just paranoia and if someone thinks that it's their loss.

@traveller There's also Clayfighter, and Earthworm Jim, and Battletoads -- there are a ton of games that manage wacky humor and aren't intentionally bad.

[Melly]

At least the guys doing The Path mentioned working on a demo for the game, which would actually be a small unique piece of the story not present in the full game. I'm waiting on that to try out the game.

[team_q]

Buying this game and being angry is like buying Pyst and being angry. They advertised it with a dancing Stalin! I have no problem with companies breaking conventions and making games worse for whatever reason. Race to the top is fine, but fight for the bottom is funnier. I don't believe in refunds if you don't like something, I've learned from my mistakes in the past with that.

[Oddbob]

Paul, I don't think it's *too* far into paranoia territory but it's entirely likely that if someone is that closed minded anyway, it'd take a massive, massive effort to convince them that they're being a bit silly. As often as I like to convince myself I'm reasonably open minded, point me at an MMORPG or most games with orcs in and it's a less than subtle reminder that I've got a silly blind spot too.

@Traveller. Awesome - thanks for that, I'll do some digging about This Means War! in a bit. To the googlemobile methinks. Cheers!

[Melly]

Buying this game and being angry is like buying Pyst and being angry. They advertised it with a dancing Stalin! I have no problem with companies breaking conventions and making games worse for whatever reason. Race to the top is fine, but fight for the bottom is funnier. I don't believe in refunds if you don't like something, I've learned from my mistakes in the past with that.

What kind of past mistakes? did you make a game and everybody who bought it wanted refunds or something like that?

[team_q]

What kind of past mistakes? did you make a game and everybody who bought it wanted refunds or something like that?

I meant from a consumer standpoint, I've learned to look before I leap! I used to read up a lot before buying games, but when I had more money then time to play games, I bought several based on that I 'should' play them, based on hype only, so I was with several games that I won't play that if I thought about and read about them, I would've known that I wouldn't really like them. I think its silly to expect refunds if you make a bad choice.

[William Broom]

Yeah, I'm sure the developers intentionally made the game laggy and unstable because they thought it would be funny.

[Rob Lach]

Yeah, I'm sure the developers intentionally made the game laggy and unstable because they thought it would be funny.

"It's not a bug, it's a feature."

[team_q]

Yeah, I'm sure the developers intentionally made the game laggy and unstable because they thought it would be funny.

I was talking more about design decisions. To be fair, I haven't played it yet.

[arrogancy]

I always find context is pretty important and bless you if you can take any of the aggrandisement seriously on that page because I can't. Well done though, you got me bang to rights there.

Now then, about why it's a problem SvM making money and getting some exposure. Why is that a problem? I know, I know, I keep banging on about this but I find it fascinating and I'm genuinely intrigued as to why it's an issue.

It's not stealing money from you, it's not stealing exposure from you, no-one gets hurt here so I'm a bit miffed as to where it creates an issue y'know. Sure, it makes a good soundbite but I'm sort of hoping that there's something here I'm not able to understand.

It's a bit like this: I don't like The Path. I think it's broken and adolescent and have said so. Do I think ToT shouldn't be allowed to sell The Path or don't deserve any of the money, publicity and exposure they have for it? Damn, no I don't. I genuinely wish them all the success in the world because just because I don't like something doesn't mean it should be crushed (unless it's Rick Dangerous, obv.) and I'm comfortable enough with my own self to feel I can hold an opinion that others don't.

I reserve the right to say that I personally don't like it, I reserve the right to discuss with others my reasoning for not liking it but it's not taking anything from me just by existing or y'know, sneaking into my house and beating my cat up or something.

Does SvM hurt you somehow just by its very existence? Do you feel it is taking something from you or from people you love? What? Why is it a problem?

You might think I'm being snarky but I'm not. I'm genuinely fascinated as to what the issue could be here. Tell me up, man. Tell me up.

A wise man once had this to say about XNA community games:

It’s fine if you don’t like the game. We knew a lot of people wouldn’t. But part of the point of Community Games is to make whatever type of game you feel like making, and in this case, we wanted to go back to 1983 for a little while to a time when you weren’t exactly sure you were going to be able to make a simple jump over some spikes because you didn’t build up enough running room yet. In our next game, we’ll do something completely different. That’s part of the fun of the freedom of publisher free indie gaming design.

My bolding there, obv. Surely if that applies to you, Mr Arrogancy, then it can apply to Mezmer too?

Nobody said they couldn't make/sell the game. What people are saying is that the problems with the game have nothing to do with the "wacky design" and everything to do with bad programming.

We purposely made Ad-Pets play almost exactly like Floyd of the Jungle (an old C64 game) and warn the consumer (on our site) that it plays exactly like that beforehand. They advertise their game as a good strategy title with new innovations, whereas it's apparently buggy and laggy and has no new innovations. And people are defending it as "having done that on purpose," where it seems obvious to others that it wasn't done on purpose and is just bad design.

And yes, it can hurt to a degree. If people are burned by "wacky Stalin game" they might be more hesitant about getting excited over or buying my "wacky Obama game" for instance, or any other developers "wacky game" because they suspect that the gameplay may be terrible if they've been burned in the past for something similar. It can get the gaming media less likely to cover/get excited about wacky titles, which filters down into sales. Etc.

Nobody's saying "they don't have a right to," but there are various reasons why people wouldn't want to be supportive of it.

[Oddbob]

Nobody said they couldn't make/sell the game

...but if they do make/sell the game they shouldn't be allowed money or coverage, right? So they may as well not make it, or if they do just lock it in a box.

where it seems obvious to others that it wasn't done on purpose and is just bad design

Stop it! It is bad design. We've covered this. Whether deliberate or not, it's still bad design. And that's cool, you don't have to like that - but saying "it's obviously bad design" when yes, well done, give yourself a clap, it is bad design isn't helping this discussion in the slightest.

Has it really come down to insane conspiracy theories to justify a dislike? Are you really saying that Mezmer's intent was to deceive the general public and run away to the hills with suitcases full of money whilst causing potentially masses of damage to the indie scene in one fell swoop? Cripes!

It can get the gaming media less likely to cover/get excited about wacky titles, which filters down into sales. Etc.

No offence but that's a load of cock. Someone pulled a similar comment on Tim's blog when the game was released (and for bonus points implied that it was somehow stealing coverage from more "worthy" games) and frankly, it's a load of unfounded, nonsensical rubbish with absolutely no attachment to reality whatsoever.

How on Earth do you come up with that theory? What possible evidence beyond paranoid ramblings do you have that it could actually happen?  If that was going to happen, it would have happened bloody years ago. But it hasn't! And it won't. So stop being a silly. The world will still turn, the media will still cover stuff that interests or amuses them and there won't be some massive imbalance caused by people making games you don't personally approve of.

Nobody stopped buying platform games because Brian Bloodaxe was trying to be wacky shitcake. No-one stopped buying or covering FPS games when someone made a silly or crap one. It simply does not work that way. If you've got proof otherwise, I'd bloody love to see it as would all the journo's I know because they're in for the shock of their life when they find out their lives have been a crazy lie to date.

Nobody's saying "they don't have a right to," but there are various reasons why people wouldn't want to be supportive of it.

Right then. Don't be supportive of it. Don't buy it. Don't encourage it. Job's a good 'un. This isn't about whether you should be supportive of it or not, although as I've stated I believe that we should be. It's about implying that because you don't want to support it, no-one else should, that it should be denied media coverage and monies because you, you personally, don't like it and then assuming the conspiracy theorist defence.

That's my issue here.

[arrogancy]

You're shifting goalposts. You're taking statements that are in response to something in particular and removing them from their responsive context as if they're statements in themselves as opposed to answering them in the context they're placed in, while adding strawman "implied motives" to some of them to argue against and make appeals against.

And I'm a marketing/design major, and there is quite a bit of observed marketing theory that goes into media coverage of trends, and how public perception of trends can shift just due to what is presented as a showcase of the trend. It's not 'paranoid rambling'; it's provable marketing theory. You're also making the mistake of using a wide genre as a comparison to a theme (platformers to niche political humor games).