I haven't followed this so closely, but this surprised me. The W2 Kickstarter page clearly states:
"It’s turn based, tactical, with a storyline that will be deeper and broader."
I considered that to be a clear commitment to TB. Is it not?
(Sorry wrong thread for this discussion, but I'd be curious anyway.)
It probably will have a “TB” mode. But I also feel pretty certain it will have a RTwP mode as well (i.e. Arcanum and FO:T), which means the game will be balanced around RTwP and the only reason to play in pure TB is if you are extra stupid and like to waste time when you could just click on an enemy and go make a sandwich.
I don’t want to go back and search for it but I remember one interview where they stated a hybrid system like FO:T was being looked at or something. Another where they said something about important game design decisions and three versus examples where given with the last being TB vs. RT. It isn’t one specific post or claim but the sum of the tone, people involved, and a mixture of big things and little things that seem to be paving the way for the eventual announcement.
If you consider the audience and its fickleness, the same audience that thinks NWN had great combat, and the fact that a game like Drakensung: River of Time is a flop to the same community that thinks BG:2 was the be all, end all, even though D:RoT was like BG:2 but with a much better rpg system and far more modern, maybe there is a chance? I highly doubt it though.
But, at the end of the day, I think they are going to shoot for the stars with a hit, and that means they will talk themselves into RTwP even if they would like to stay true to the fans and have only RT. I think shadowrun will know it will not be a smash hit and will try to cater to the fans. WL2 will try and cater to the biggest demographic that can be interested in playing a PC game with a non-triple AAA production value. Far more people have less refined and sophisticated taste when it comes to combat; hence games like dungeon siege being hits. These people have pandered for the biggest numbers for too long to make a TB game.
it would seem many live in either a "dog eat dog" world or a "fed with a silver spoon" one. kickstarter is a FUNDRAISING model first most, not a business model, and any comment or opinion that doesn't take that into account is trying to swim in the sky.
this also reflects that while the internet is full of possiblities it is also shows that many are even less "helpful" than they are towards others in the real world.
internet=selfish 2.0.
roqua your post is interesting and certainly valid from your perspective. it also a keen insight into why you like nothing but turn based. your thoughts/posts are very structured and to the point and i imagine that you are the type of person who hate being interupted before "your turn" is up.
I don’t know why you always target and harass me; isn’t there a place you can communicate with other people with special needs? You have no idea what you are talking about at any point in a post you have ever made. Corporations are fundraising models. What they are trying to get is capital. Raising funds is raising capital. Capital for the express purpose to employ people and for PPE to make a product and turn a profit. Also known as capitalism. Just like kickstarter.
Instead of turning to the traditional forms of capital they turned to their target market. Instead of the usual potential ROI the funders have the opportunity cost of not funding and not getting a game they may not have without funding, and the
tier rewards. This is by definition a business model. This gives us insight into how they will deliver value and entice customers to pay for value.
You are correct, this is the internet. Selfish 2.0. The internet is always chock full’ o unqualified dickheads that say nonsense when they shouldn’t be anywhere near the big table. Some people should stick to trying to color in between the lines and other activities they have a chance of being able to do well at.
