Considering the pedigree of the game, I think it's safe to read it literally.
Bah, nonsense. I wouldn't even begin to project the severe graphic limitations of original to interpret Fargo meant literally "top-down".
The original wasn't even straight top down, it was a pseudo isometric angle, where you saw the East and South faces buildings/walls from about a 70 degree pitch. The characters/trees (even the mountains on the world map) were rendered face forward from the side like a paper doll and then placed on top of that pseudo isometric perspective. The ground itself, in all it's primitive graphics glory may have been the only thing that was actually rendered literally top-down but who can even tell?
A moveable camera adds a lot of expense to graphics costs. I know a bit about 3d graphics. For an indie with a $million, in my opinion 3d with a moveable camera is just plain out of reach.
Out of respect for the value I place on the civil discourse on these forums I'm going to take your word for it that you have a clue what you're talking about. Therefore....
We have to be envisioning something different completely different with the camera because I can't for the life of me figure out why you think that's adding so much cost. I'm envisioning a 360deg rotatable camera on the Y axis, with a pitch bounds from 60 to 90 deg and zoomable perhaps from somewhere between minimum Fallout 1/2 levels distance to twice as far out as that. Basically keeping the distance at a minimum level to reasonably plan for the level of detail on the models and textures. Moving the camera along the x/z planes is of course irrelevant, you have to do that anyway, whether it's tied to follow the player/party or edge pan-able in some fashion it already has to move on those axises.
Every 3d models is already at an arbitrary rotation, it's position and rotation in relation to the camera's position & rotation doesn't matter in the slightest. The camera being able to pitch, rotate and pan within acceptable bounds would add zero, zilch, nada to 3d graphics development cost.
??? I will wager you $100 right now that they will not use UDK for the bargain basement price of 25% of future revenue. That is insane. Anyway, the issue isn't the cost of a 3d game engine.
I had already agreed 100%, it's not the best engine for the project from a technical, development or cost/revenue perspective.
The issue is the cost of generating assets. Also keep in mind that Fargo will have people on payroll. That is a whole other world than having acquaintances volunteer their time in hope of a payoff down the road.
Not trying to knock you, but I don't think you have a realistic grasp of just how much shit costs.
That's funny.
Anyway, that's what the bulk of the million is for, the salaried employees. I don't think even with a million he could spend enough on Mt Dew and Doritos for to make the whole game by himself.
