Black Geyser - Gameplay Video & Kickstarter Soon

Same here, reading more about the whole greed concept has certainly peaked my interest, to the point where I must see it in action.

Originally Posted by Pongo
I've gone from sceptical to interested since that happened.

I'm inclined to agree, and Chien (sa usual) has no idea what he's talking about.

I ALWAYS get annoyed when my characters actions have consequences that doesn't really feel rooted in the lore or logical. Baldurs Gate wouldn't work without the protagonist being of divine heritage, it's what makes the games if not probable then at least plausible.

Of course, some games go overboard with this "The Chosen One" (TES I'm looking at you). Morrowind at least lets you realize what it means along the way, Skyrim throws it in your face after 10 minutes of game time. I prefer games where I'm just a nobody though, and I'm fine if my actions never save the world but only my own hide and perhaps my own family/companions/village/whatever. But if I DO end up saving the world it better make sense.

I have no problem with a Greed System, I just want it to make sense. If it does it's a cool idea.

People who have no concern about the greed system have obviously no concern about it.

That does not mean that concerns about it were not voiced.

Due to the burden of the past, there should have be no concern at all, asking for assurance that the greed system is rooted in lore is both pointless and revealing.

Reading the project, it is clear that finding out about greed and its repercussions, understanding how the gameworld is strung together is somehow a big feature in the storytelling act. And devs on this thread wrote that there will be an explanation, which is part of the discovery process of the product.

This project has at least two toxic features: first one, it looks as if plays in RTwP. Wont be long before voices rise to tell that the product would be great if done UgoIgo turn based.

The second is the greed system: which could be a nice refreshing take on the way loot is accessed, by regulating and filtering out pieces of loot that matter and those who do not. It might add definition to the loot.
Instead of bathing into loot, players might get to put thoughts in what they need.

There is nothing wrong in both features. Except that it is known that people have issues with RTwP and they also made known issues with limitations on loot.

As for records, it will be no surprise if those two features end being compromized as people prefer them out.

Choosing what you loot worked well in Bg1 where you had both a limited inventory and encumbrance system (later fucked by Bg2 and Bags of Holding), there is no need to come up with convoluted Greed stuff to force players to pick and choose.

It does not prevent from hoarding loot. It takes time, that is all.
The bags allowed to do what could be done anyway. It provided a convenient means to avoid a hassle.
This greed system might take a different path on looting: do not touch if you do not need it.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
People who have no concern about the greed system have obviously no concern about it.

That does not mean that concerns about it were not voiced.

Due to the burden of the past, there should have be no concern at all, asking for assurance that the greed system is rooted in lore is both pointless and revealing.

Reading the project, it is clear that finding out about greed and its repercussions, understanding how the gameworld is strung together is somehow a big feature in the storytelling act. And devs on this thread wrote that there will be an explanation, which is part of the discovery process of the product.

This project has at least two toxic features: first one, it looks as if plays in RTwP. Wont be long before voices rise to tell that the product would be great if done UgoIgo turn based.

The second is the greed system: which could be a nice refreshing take on the way loot is accessed, by regulating and filtering out pieces of loot that matter and those who do not. It might add definition to the loot.
Instead of bathing into loot, players might get to put thoughts in what they need.

There is nothing wrong in both features. Except that it is known that people have issues with RTwP and they also made known issues with limitations on loot.

As for records, it will be no surprise if those two features end being compromized as people prefer them out.

Whoa. I actually…agree. And of course it *should* be turn based. I'll settle for RTwP though.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
It does not prevent from hoarding loot. It takes time, that is all.
The bags allowed to do what could be done anyway. It provided a convenient means to avoid a hassle.
This greed system might take a different path on looting: do not touch if you do not need it.

Or course it prevented hoarding since when you left the map the loot left was lost forever.

BG does not prevent hoarding. Quite a common habit to use the chest in the friendly arm inn as a hoarding point.

Beside, it does not seem that the loot vanishing is somewhat justified in lore.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
BG does not prevent hoarding. Quite a common habit to use the chest in the friendly arm inn as a hoarding point.

Beside, it does not seem that the loot vanishing is somewhat justified in lore.

Or course it is, you left so scavengers (all those goblins, kobolds and the rest) picked it all up.

We do know that (even a properly implemented) greed system is a very sensitive question. A risky thing.

When most players play a game, they want to be stronger, better, more special, than in their real lives. Anything that touches this is dangerous. In particular, associating looting with (apparently) negative consequences. is But there are no "negative" consequences, there are just consequences. Everyone should understand that excessive looting in Black Geyser: Couriers of Darkness will not give you disadvantages, it will not restrict your fun. It's just a choice, a playing style. In an RPG, does it restrict you if you kill NPCs related to subquests before completing the subquests, to take their valuable items instead of completing the quest? What about the Flaming Fist attacks in Baldur's Gate when your reputation is low? Or in Baldur's Gate II, casting spells before purchasing a license, resulting in a Cowled Wizards visit? It's a decision, not more. With pros and cons.

Back to the risky thing: greed system. Opening a possibility for players for "self-restriction". This is indeed risky - a dividing concept - that I'm sure will divide players to two sides.

So the Kickstarter will also be about this: does Black Geyser: Couriers of Darkness get the chance to fully implement a game based on a brave, risky, dividing concept? Or - if Black Geyser never gets released - we will never know how such an "experiment" would have ended in the player community. So, we count on the help of those who want to give it a chance.

Brave and risky? You act like it’s some daring innovation going on here. Yeah….no. So maybe I won’t pick up some vendor trash loot so some number doesn’t increase. Whoop-dee-doo.

Thank you for your feedback. Having said that, I'd like to quote an earlier post of mine:

Originally Posted by Rothgor
The greed system is much more complex than this, and carefully elaborated.

Regarding how brave and risky the concept is, I think it has already generated a more-or-less heated discussion where we can already see 2-3 types of different opinions on the matter.

Originally Posted by Rothgor
When most players play a game, they want to be stronger, better, more special, than in their real lives.

What do you mean, I've never played a game where I could be as strong, great and special as in real life. Nor one where I could be as humble.

Originally Posted by TomRon
What do you mean, I've never played a game where I could be as strong, great and special as in real life. Nor one where I could be as humble.

You're right. My bad. I should have included "different" and "strong in a special way" as well in the list. And that's why I said "most players", but not all. This is just my personal experience. A CEO of a Fortune 500 company will be less likely to play a game where he does exactly the same thing (possibly in a lower position). Again, just my personal experience with players. (Not the official viewpoint of Black Geyser: Couriers of Darkness team. )

We all want to be able to cast Lightning bolts with and from our fingers, don't we?

Originally Posted by TomRon
What do you mean, I've never played a game where I could be as strong, great and special as in real life. Nor one where I could be as humble.

Haha.

Originally Posted by Rothgor
Thank you for your feedback. Having said that, I'd like to quote an earlier post of mine:


Regarding how brave and risky the concept is, I think it has already generated a more-or-less heated discussion where we can already see 2-3 types of different opinions on the matter.

Your spin is pretty disingenuous. It's generated discussion because a lot of people think it sounds really dumb and that the "lore" behind it sounds weak. The people on the other side are basically saying either "let's wait and see", or "eh, I suppose I can live with it". Nobody is saying "hey that's great, I've been waiting years for a developer who's so Bold And Brave that they're willing to make a game where not picking up junk vendor loot might change things in the game world!"

Now, I understand that you've implied in some of your posts that there's more to this thing than you're willing or able to explain or reveal at this point in time. That makes sense, and it's fine, but if you're unwilling to explain why this feature is so great or how it makes perfect sense in the context of your gameworld, then it doesn't make much sense to go around touting it as a feature at this point in time either.

Originally Posted by Archangel
Or course it is, you left so scavengers (all those goblins, kobolds and the rest) picked it all up.

Or birds. Or technological limitations that made hard to save the evolution of a gameworld.

This shows that players can find easy ways to fill gaps even unneeded. They are quick to make up stuff in order to rationalize what they like.

Originally Posted by Stingray
Nobody is saying "hey that's great, I've been waiting years for a developer who's so Bold And Brave that they're willing to make a game where not picking up junk vendor loot might change things in the game world!"

That is because this option is no longer on the table.

This product will have loot, it might have a distribution over loot quality and it might have the greed system.
The greed system in other words is extra works over simple loot. It is harder to achieve.

It will be easier not to provide the loot system rather than provide it.

Added to that, the greed system has been rejected. Lobbying has started by players who have by their own admission an oversaturated backlog. There are also hundreds of products featuring the kind of loot they look for. Yet they are urged to force their ways into this product. They lose nothing by giving it a pass. Except of course an opportunity to force their way: it must be their way or no other way.

The greed system has potential, it is a fresh take on the loot mechanics. In this thread, the concern is not about achieving the potential, it is about having it rooted in lore. Players have no concern like proper implementation, proper execution, they are concerned by lore even though they showed they have very low expectations in lore justification.

The crowdfunding scene has a long record in deviations from announced projects.
The option of supporting a feature because it is announced is no longer on the table.

The greed feature is toxic: it is harder to make and players already showed their willingness to hijack the project to get it removed.

Players have no interest in the product itself, all they desire is to force their way in. The offer is large enough they could ignore the product.

Most feedback that is going to be received is going to be biased against the greed system: it wont be about making it better, it will be about getting rid of it.

Two options are left: lobbying for removal or wait and see, the feature will be implemented or not. If implemented, it might be properly or not.

That is the current state of the crowdfunded scene: the option of taking the implementation of a feature as granted because it is part of the project announcement when the feature is met by rejection is no longer on the table.

In the meantime, we've asked in a Facebook post how much (min - max) the backers are planning to pledge on Kickstarter. This is important for planning the campaign structure and promotion (creating a momentum in the first 1-2 days is crucial for any campaign). If it's not a secret, I encourage everyone to join by telling your planned pledge. If you prefer to stay anonymous, just drop me a private message here or on Facebook.

This is our Facebook page, by the way:
https://www.facebook.com/blackgeyser/

Do you consider the answers to this very question on the survey on your website? I hadalready answered there… long ago.

Just my two cents, but I don't think things are quite right for the launch of a Kickstarter. My impression is that there are too many little signs, in the way it's described on the website, to the sudden jump in the timeline in your news from being about to launch the KS in 2016 to saying the same thing suddenly now, to the way the PR has been handled. Too much of it screams amateurism to me, and I would not predict success right now.

I'd take a step back, and have a bit of a rethink before launch.