f13.net

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/22cans/project-godus (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/22cans/project-godus)

I did a quick search but didn't see any mention of this on the site. Looks like it's Populous but on a curved surface. I'm psyched.

(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/85916/molyneux_hype.jpg)

Heh, yeah. Well, there is one part in one of the videos where Pete talks about wanting to go back to the point where making a fun game is the main goal (or something to that effect). If they can recapture the spirit of Populous I'll be happy.

They can't recapture the spirit of anything. Molyneux is spiritually bankrupt, but has made great returns on his investment in bullshit over the last decade.

Bullshit is the new plastics.

I can honestly say I wouldn't buy anything he does anymore. The last thing I actually liked that he did was black and white, and that was a decade ago.

Where's the working concept?  They're trying to sell it based on name alone.

"Remember when Molyneux made that game you like?  Give him money!"

Hmm... that was 15 years ago. That tactic didn't work on me for Elite and I enjoyed that a fuck of a lot more than Black & White :-P

I would buy Populous (the original one by Bullfrog) for 10 bucks today if I could. (I still have it but don't have a working computer that will run the media it's on - I don't think the IBM XT works after 18 years in a damp basement).

I find myself lately feeling nostalgic for the original versions of Civ, Railroad Tycoon, Master of Orion, (even vanilla WoW). You can never go home again, I guess.

But I won't buy this unless it lives up to its promise, and I don't think it will.

Even cheaper! $5.99

http://www.gog.com/gamecard/populous

I might give that a shot.  I played it again on a Genesis a year ago and still loved it.

I wish they had Powermonger...

Can't Peter Molyneux raise capital on his name alone; why does he need a kickstarter?

A hobo can find a quarter on the ground, but he'll still ask passersby for a ten.

OMG Thank you.

Free money is free. 

The only credit he has on a game I really enjoyed is producer on Syndicate. Definitely not in on this one.

That is him raising capital on his name.

Whatever happened to the box game?

Curiosity? After having massive server issues (which it still does, just less often) it is going on.

Curiosity?  It was released on iOS and Android in early November, I think.  People have been clicking away since, apparently.  The Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_%E2%80%93_What%27s_Inside_the_Cube%3F) has a whole depressing section that lists all the dates when various levels were uncovered and what amazing secrets lay within (spoiler alert: the layers are mostly just different colors, though the more recent ones have had the names of Godus backers emblazoned on them).  Allegedly the PC version is still incoming, so we can look forward to that.

Plastics.

Great, they've got PopII. Now I have to go and buy it.

Thanks

Well, it was either that or uncrate the A1200.  :awesome_for_real:

Money comes with strings. Kickstarter does not.

To be fair, I really liked The Movies but it wasn't for the game. Unfortunately, because of the game part, the movie making part was really about 3/4-assed and that missing 1/4 was REALLY FUCKING IMPORTANT.

So much.

In a related universe, I'm looking at the shit on XBL Indie and thinking I can make something like that.  Look at the one called Million Taps.

This. Whenever this guy's name come up, I just recall Fable 3 extremely awesome interface and ignore the hype.

 From my understanding they are struggling to reach their kick starter target actually. So maybe the hype machine is finally dying off.

From your understanding of... Clicking the link?

Apparently they are going to release a playable prototype (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/12/molyneux-project-godus-to-release-playable-prototype-tommorow/) tomorrow before the funding deadline. 

Guffaw.

Translation: Surprised they couldn't fleece people on brand name alone, 22Cans will actually have to prove they can make something.

Did he release it today? Or was that more horseshit?

From my POV, how can they possibly manage to fuck up such a simple game idea? Even with Peter behind the wheel, how can they possibly fuck this up?

Dude. Molyneux said it; that's the DEFINITION of horseshit.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/22cans/project-godus/posts/369430

Comment thread for the KS is getting pretty humorous, though.

I swear Molyneux fans need to get into some kind of domestic abuse counseling.

If this doesn't get funded, it gives me hope that people using Kickstarter are starting to turn a more critical eye to this kind of pie in the sky nonsense.

They somehow managed to get like $50k in about two days, so barring a rush of last-minute pledge cancellations (which is entirely possible), 22 Cans will probably make it, if barely.

I like the look of the art and terrain modeling in their little prototype, but yeah, think I'll sit back and wait this one out.

I think my new baseline for giving money to game developers (of any stripe) before shipping is "playable demo or prototype available".

I watched half the video and then stopped, realizing it seemed like he would be a terrible person to work for.

When Molyneux tweets things like, ""The coders here at 22cans did another 36 hour marathon. We now have hugely improved servers #curiosity is stating to behave like it should." then yes, he would be a terrible person to work for.

He would be the definition of "Pointy-haired boss" with that kind of attitude.

:oh_i_see:

It's up to 370/450 now. The comments are getting beyond absurd.

I haven't pictured a reality where this isn't funded XD
well notch tweeted again, probably helped a bit!
I've changed the header image on my FB page to the Godus logo, seems to have got more interest than just posting on my timeline
Well, I've upped my pledge. Seeing the new artwork convinced me
I honestly don't know why people following this project are so different to the ones following other gaming projects.. so many ignorant and, quite frankly, idiotic questions and reasons for not backing..
If the games half as good as the tension of not knowing if we gonna hit the pledges its gonna be amazing

 :facepalm:

Artwork and tech demos are great, but there's a long road from that to a solid, playable, fun game.   I think their art style looks neat and the demo video is cute, but I'm not particularly convinced that Peter is going to deliver on the fun here.  Their blather about how amazing their "click the cube" thing is also does not increase my confidence.

Also, I think there may be some weariness among people who've backed a bunch of the high profile game projects which are all a year or two out from completion.

I think the best value for my gaming dollar for little indie projects has been stuff that has started with a playable demo and a buy-the-alpha/beta-at-a-discount model.  Minecraft and Kerbal Space Program being fantastic examples of this, and Don't Starve is delivering pretty well too.

EDIT: fix markup

I could throw a lot of P. T. Barnum quotes in here.  Instead I'll just mention that half the people in the world are below-average intelligence.

Indeed.

Also, a lot of us here are quite a distance from the middle mark. Meaning statistically even more of the people in the world are stupider.

Ah, but which direction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect)?

Only if nobody is tied.  :why_so_serious:

Integers are for children.

£475,052 pledged of £450,000 goal.

Let's see what Molyneux can do without publishers rushing him.

I predict farting and poo flinging.

That dude has issues.

My faith in people understanding Kickstarter continues to take a kick in the nuts.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/breadpig/to-be-or-not-to-be-that-is-the-adventure makes me feel better about insane people throwing their money at Peter Molyneux.  (So far webcomics publishing projects have had the best record of delivering on time and high quality results of all the random Kickstarter things I've backed -- I especially like how Ryan has kept increasing the value of the existing reward tiers as the money rolls in -- more illustrations, color, prequel, extra goodies, etc)

Molyneux might be a douche, but there's a shitload of people who have enjoyed his games.

So if you want to lose your faith in people based on Kickstarter, you sure have several better options to get your panties in a bunch over.

You may want to mellow on flinging shit in a community that is possibly older than you are.

"The light that burns twice as bright, burns half as long."  :why_so_serious:  :grin:

Also, if you think posts in this thread are representative of panty-bunching, you obviously are new around here. ^^

Sure there are better options. Doesn't mean this isn't stupid as well. On a very large scale.

EDIT: Plus, cut the new guy some slack, he's learning.  :-)

Eh, as an oldie then:

Your kick starter hate is getting old very very quickly. No need to keep banging on about it.

And yes, there are far easier targets than the hype machine, who has actually delivered a number of enjoyable and playable games in his time.

I seriously doubt anything I've said here is wildly different than some of the opinions of several people in the same thread.  I'm banging more on people for buying into the same hype than them using Kickstarter to do it.

It's a buyer beware medium, so...buyer beware I suppose.

Meh. Molyneaux was The Man back when I used an Amiga.


Now? Not so much...

Yes, but what has he done lately?

Formerly successful game developer != currently successful game developer. In fact, there might be something about having successful games that makes a person not only be a douche but also be spectacularly bad at creating games once having been successful.

(It's the I'm a star syndrome; too many game developers suffer from this.)

36 hour code marathons are not something to be proud of - they're something to avoid. That's just poor management.

1. We've already beat up Paelos about his raeg agin teh injistice of teh kickstarting.

2. Beating up on Molyneux isn't even a thing, it's more of a 'oh dear, not again'

3. I'm sure this game will turn out awesome.

I'd rather throw money at the guy trying to make Limit Theory than this Napoleonic twat.

Fable and B & W weren't great games, but they're hardly 'omg, still trading on his Bullfrog stuff' failures...

Before or after the second Kickstarter to re-fund the game after they burn through all the first-round money without producing anything?

On a possibly related note from what I understand DoubleFine's game is going to miss it's release data (again) and is in danger of running out of money.

Artists often do their best work when they have constraints. Giving a bunch of money to artists with no oversight is often a bad idea, especially when those artists have a history of over-promising and not managing money well. A lot of these Kickstarters (DoubleFine, Molyneux, Obsidian) are for entities that are simply not good at producing video games.

Kickstarter is good for a lot of things, like small indie films, producing a board game that has already been designed, finishing a small game like FTL. But in these cases it's being used more as a charity for failing businesses which are encouraged to over-promise to secure funding. Kickstarter can be a good tool for the little guys but I fear the bubble is going to completely burst when a lot of the highest profile projects turn out to be busts. I also suspect that a lot of the money being taken in by some of these projects is going to be used as bridge financing to keep the business going rather than for the specific project.

I agree.

I agree too. My favourite Kickstarter update was from a guy who'd gone silent for a while, then popped up to say something like, "Sorry I've been quiet, I got married and bought a house." Let's hope none of that pile of Kickstarter money was 'borrowed' for the down payment.

Two major issues I see causing problems with Kickstarter - the lack of backer power once they've donated their money and the 'gap' between what a Kickstarter raises and what it actually costs to develop the game. Players backing a number of projects appear to think that they can get a AAA title on an indie budget, but I think they are in for a rude awakening.

Where did you see the info that the DoubleFine Adventure title is running out of money? Guess they shouldn't have spent up on that completely necessary and unbiased documentary.

I bought Fable based on the hype, promises and an IGN review. If I had lower expectations, I would probably have enjoyed it a lot more. Since then I don't buy his stuff, aside from when it's in the Bin of Bargains..

The updates on the kick starter page are beginning to imply this is an actual thing.

Looks like it is along the lines of populous iii. Which I thought was a decent 'more accessible' rethink of original populous, despite all the purist angst it attracted. Not earth shattering but populous 3 was to 1 as xcom 2012 is to the original UFO.

Why 6 people paid $5000 to preorder it is another matter but each to their own I guess.


Regarding kick starter angst. I give zero fucks. I imagine there are some circumstances I might one day give free money to a kick starter, but it would take some crazy alignment of stars to happen. At the least it would have to be charity project. Fuck rich people with an established record being unwilling to put their own cash on the line and expecting me to preorder shit 3 years out. Anyway, I see kick starter as something that happens to other people's wallets.

(https://dl.dropbox.com/u/829607/negativeman.gif)

I actually somewhat enjoyed Fable mostly because I had completely ignored any and all pre-release hype. Knowing what I know now about its development and the promises it made (it promised shit that's not even really feasible to do today, a decade later), I'd have been incensed after buying it.

Yeah, it was around that time when I stopped really paying attention to fellatio articles previews on websites and magazines.


This was almost a decade ago. Having said that, I still check out their reviews before buying stuff I'm not sure about. I also do the rounds of Gamespot, Eurogamer, see what if anything is said here, and so on.

with the advent of player reviews on youtube, like Angry Joe's and other stuff - ( i know some of them are annoying ) it's pretty much a video review i'd go for than reading paragraphs smeared with ad hype left and rights.

Fable wasn't just over promising. Lionhead deliberately *lied* just before release about what the game entailed.

One of their community reps, Sam, posted about he got lost in a forest for days looking for weapons just before release (and after the game had gone gold). That's not possible in fable - the entire game is invisible walls and corridors. You couldn't go off the beaten track because there the game didnt work that way!

Peter Molyneux has been repeating the cycle of 'promise the earth before release, then admit its shit after but promise the next one will be better' for over a decade now. I used to think it was just optimism but not so many times doing the same thing.

I wish I could see the graph of donations for this thing. A lot of the kickstarters by former and current devs that haven't just rocketed to 10000% of their original goal typically get to like 70-80%, stall out, and then like on the last day suddenly magical angel investors drop money on all of the high $ items and push it over 100%.

I like where you're going with that.

Listen, I'm a huge minecraft fan, I think it's one of the best games ever in the history of gaming. That said.

(https://s3.amazonaws.com/ksr/assets/000/304/346/9b91303595c31de2f0319a72a2ba21e1_large.jpg?1355424340)

Notch needs to shut the fuck up.

He's the poster boy for "I'd Rather Be Lucky Than Good".

Like this?

https://www.kicktraq.com/projects/22cans/project-godus/

Huh, in the last two days donations increased by 2 1/2 times or so. Go fig, I'm absolutely sure that a lot of people suddenly found it and were excited to contribute.

Well, once everyone got their hands on the playable demo it was inevitable pledges would spike.

Looking at stats for some projects I've backed, having some additional lift in the last 3-7 days seems pretty common to both projects that just slide over the line and projects that hit their goal within the first week.  The data here isn't super-granular (it'd be awesome to see the days broken down in stacked bars by rough donation size buckets), but it seems like they got a big push a couple days before the end which pushed them over the line, but then interest continued at the same pace it had before that big push.  Most analysis I've seen of kickstarter funding patterns for successful projects matches up with heavier funding rates in the first few and last few days.

We call it the 'hockey stick effect'.

Video game Kickstarters have become used to targets being blown out of the water, but some other analysis of Kickstarters overal (http://www.appsblogger.com/behind-kickstarter-crowdfunding-stats/)l point out that a quarter are funded within 3% over their target.

The whole Amanda Palmer debacle (google it) says a lot about Kickstarter project and attitude as a whole. Even though, of course, there's room for plenty of exceptions. I might be forgetful here, but so far I think I only backed Wasteland 2, and so far the updates are satsfactory. We'll see if they can deliver and how, but I think that the next step gor crowdfunding is to provide super-transparent balances and detailed expenditures to the penny, or we'll all get tired pretty soon with of fixing some other person's debts in exchange for the promise of the game of our dreams.

You will have to elaborate on the Amanda palmer thing because googling it doesn't reveal anything at all. The top search on Amanda Palmer Debacle is a post from a musician defending her using volunteers whilst touring - I'm guessing its somehow linked to that?

I'm pretty sure he meant Anita Sarkeesian (http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/07/09/man-disagrees-with-womans-kickstarter-campaign-creates-game-about-punching-her-in-the-face), not Amanda Palmer.

In short, Anita Sarkeesian started a Kickstarter to fund research on how women are portrayed in video games.  In response, someone created a game which entailed punching her in the face.  This is just the tip of the iceberg of the misogyny and threats of violence that were made against her.

Anita Sarkeesian trolled the trolls, to the tune of "$158,917 over the course of a month" giving her enough ammunition to paint an entire huge group of people as consisting mainly of the lowest denominator. She's almost as big a jerk as her tormentors.

While misogyny exists, (and I would argue no more so in the game industry than most other male-dominated places), it is not the norm. Men who play females in video games can attest to that, I would guess.

There are actions a person can take to invite abuse. The virulence of trolls know no bounds, which anyone who has spent any time online knows.

It also doesn't help that since Sarkeesian's Kickstarter, she's more or less dropped off of the face of the earth, and last I heard even her backers hadn't seen updates for months.

A lot of people think she just took the money and ran at this point.

Palmer kickstartered her tour.

Then went looking for musicians willing to play for free rather than use the kickstarter money.

Are there any Kickstarter projects that aren't scams?  I laughed at the whole idea three seconds after I heard about it.  I simply can't believe people are stupid enough to "invest" in projects online.

I felt I got my money's worth from Burlew's kickstarter.

Uh, lots of them?  I've gotten just about everything I've Kickstarted for.  I mostly stick to the tabletop game stuff though. 

This was Palmer's controversy. She picked up US1m+ from her Kickstarter but then wanted volunteers to play for (pretty much literally) free beer. Her comments about it was that the money was spent on filling the pledge rewards of art books and session time. A lot of people kicked up a stink about it on the grounds that she'd got a lot of money and now wanted to basically crowdsource her show (and how the hell that would work from city to city on tour wasn't ever clearly explained, or at least I never saw it).

Palmer backed down and promised to pay her musicians, but her tour is on hold currently due to a friend having late stage cancer.


Sarkeesian has posted updates, but they are backer-only (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/posts). She also did a TED talk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZAxwsg9J9Q). The only people saying she's taken the money and ran are those guys who desperately, desperately want her project to fail so they can say they were right in abusing her all along.

It's unpopular to question Kickstarter around here. Best to just not bother.

the revival of old skool shit, man.
how can u deny the second coming of fargo, Judas?
hang urself nao.

 :why_so_serious:

I'd like it to fail because it's a dumb and boring idea.

No, it's not. It's unpopular to stay stupid shit about kickstarter.

Since several of us have been backing some pretty awesome stuff and have physical rewards on hand, calling them all scams and us stupid...is stupid.

Same thing we said when you brought up concerns about the KS model: caveat emptor. Because there are awesome gems in amongst the crap and the scams.

True. 43% succeed and deliver.

Paelos, I don't think anybody here disagrees that there's a lot of worthless crap projects (if not outright scams) out there, and in many cases there's even agreement on which projects are clearly bad bets. 

But I don't think there's much support for "Kickstarter is inherently terrible."  Because it's not.  It's a service, a marketplace.  Like Ebay or Craigslist or Amazon's merchant program, etc.  I'm glad it's out there, and I have nearly a thousand dollars worth of books, prints, games, and gadgets (including a CNC motor controller and set of nice 3A stepper motors) around the house as a result.  There are also some projects that I've backed that have been delayed but show ever sign of delivering (the Pebble watch is a good example), and some which I'm not sure I'd give great odds to (some video game projects that were more of a roll of the dice).

There are definitely things Kickstarter could do better, I think, to hilight the nature of the transaction and the risks.  Their new requirement of a "risks" section turns out to have pretty weak teeth -- I see risk assessments that basically read as "this is hard but I'm confident we can do it!" which is completely without value -- why is it hard? what could go wrong? what are your contingency plans if something goes wrong? (the CNC project had issues with plastic molds and is having to remachine some parts differently, for example).

It's not like these things at all.

Not in the sense of providing a venue for one-to-one transactions, no -- wish I could think of some more varied examples here.  But in the sense of providing a way to facilitate transactions between different entities to take place, yes.  In all cases though, you get the best experience by applying some amount of due diligence and caution, and the providers of the venue are providing a venue with limited rules or protections where you are not conducting a transaction with them, but through them.

I agree, and I don't think Kickstarter is bad at all. I think the idea of Kickstarter taking 5% from projects, but not doing more beyond just saying "buyer beware" is weak. Craigslist is free, so it doesn't really have to police anything. Amazon provides product, and it absolutely will provide recourse for customers that do not get a product. Kickstarter falls into a grey area that makes me a little uncomfortable when the facilitator itself is making money from the projects.

I'll reiterate that I don't think it's terrible. I do, in this particular case, question the idea of a guy who has his own money and own connections going to the public to get a game done.

Well, they provide a publishing / discovery platform and an escrow service ("party A will receive payments from parties B..Z provided the total committed payments reach $N by time T"), and some level of vetting of completely pointless stuff (though it's not clear how much is done here and how valuable it is).

I think there's definitely value in the service -- there are plenty of projects of the "there is upfront cost that requires a certain production volume to be feasible to offer reasonable per-unit prices" style out there, combined with the sort of direct "vote with your wallets" thing (if enough people decide to commit, there's a signal there of sorts).  Providing the same thing on your own (accepting payments and possibly having to issue refunds, or whatnot) is nontrivial for most people and runs into some trust issues for others.

Is 5% too steep for the service provided?  Possibly.  I certainly thing they could provide better post-funding management of contacts.  Most non-trivial projects end up having to build some external-to-kickstarter system for getting necessary feedback from backers, etc.  There's probably room for competition in the crowd-funding space -- lower cost (better for project runners), more diligence (better for backers), more flexible rules (better for people wanting to take chances on projects outside of the mainstream), and so on.

I certainly agree that there are some pretty cynical projects out there looking to cash in on past glory, and other projects where the creators seem either ignorant of the time/cost of doing things, hopelessly optimistic, or perhaps uncaring of the high chance of failure (if not outright scammers).  This particular project is not one I'm very enthusiastic about.

I don't think it's horrible for people who already have money to seek funding from others to do things -- saying the only way you should be able to accomplish anything is traditional funding or directly out of pocket seems a bit much.  I do think that for best chances of success and just to be not shitty people about it, you're better off both providing some evidence that you can actually deliver (meaningful prototype, etc), and reasonable value to the backers for their contribution, especially since they are entering into a no-strings-attached agreement here.

If I sought traditional investors for a project and failed, there's still a possibility of them getting some money out of sale of IP, assets, etc.   Crowd funding backers pretty much get nothing.  If I sought traditional investors for a project and it was wildly successful, the investors would usually get a better return on their investment.  Crowd funding backers quite likely will not see anything extra even if the game they funded goes on to sell millions of units, etc.  It's probably important for all parties involved to understand this, and one could argue that Kickstarter does not educate as much as it could here.

I agree with your last point the most, and I would like to see Kickstarter provide more education to the userbase.

Kind of like how the front entrance of the Whole Foods near me facilitates me giving money to a gay rights organization that promises to spend the money wisely and send me a worthless quarterly newsletter in return.

Kickstarter is a way to organization donations. There's no real exchange. The final product may never get made, and while you are supposed to get the reward you paid for if that falls through there's no consequence. It's all based on the honor system.

I'm not opposed to Kickstarter across the board but thinking of it as a marketplace is a bad idea. That's simply not what it is. It's a way to donate to projects you think are cool with the faith and trust that they will get produced.


Kickstarter is basically a roll of the dice for free no-strings-attached money. There's almost no rational reason not to try to get funding that way. Other than the sort of prisoner's dilemma of killing the golden goose.

Yeah, I'd agree that marketplace is the wrong word here, and the perception of it being a simple marketplace instead of a crowdfunding/escrow/donation service is problematic.

It's lower for video games, where only about 30% (from 2009 to 2011; 2012 is lower due to the huge number of project yet to deliver) have released their title.


In contrast, I see almost no rational reason to pay money into those kind of projects. The reasons people give are more emotional - "to show publishers the kind of games we like," or "I liked these guys' old stuff" - than practical. Backers get no protection against things going pear-shaped and Kickstarter is happy to take their cut but ignore the issues around anything than the pitch. (EDIT: I'm only talking about video game projects here; Kickstarters to reprint out-of-print things or to fund a writer / film-maker with a history of delivering on low-cost operations are entirely different things.)

The benefit is almost entirely to those making the pitch, not those backing it.

We should Kickstart an improved internet investment and escrow service.

We'll call it Garriott Molyneax and Koster Incorporated. Then shift the HQ to the Caymans.

1: Kickstart your own version of Kickstarter
2: Move money to offshore headquarters
3: Moneyhats

We have a plan.

Sceptical. :oh_i_see:

We can get Raph on board, and have Notch say it's the best thing since Creepers. We'll give out shirts with captions as reward levels. There may be some delays in shirts and/or shipping.

Any stretch goals?

If we get 25% over our goals, everyone gets Taxi to Victory bumper stickers.

At 35%, all backers over $400 get a Stretch Armstrong.

At 100% over you can expect Nothing for Something.

That Nothing for Something sounds vaguely familiar. :why_so_serious:

120 days of total lack of interest later.... ARISE!

So, Peter Molyneux's Curiosity finished a couple of hours ago and here's the announcement of what was inside the box: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qhzb9OUWrXU

I'll spoiler the rest, just in case anyone is really eager to hear Molyneux witter on about it himself for some reason.

Curiosity was an experiment to see if people would pay money to get an advantage in a bare bones game. Especially when 22cans added in the ability to spend money to buy MORE blocks, thus prolonging the game.

That prize is hilarious. I didn't watch the video, but did Molyneaux actual name the guy and where he's from? Because if so:  :awesome_for_real:  :awesome_for_real:  :awesome_for_real:

And yeah, the whole, "Our entire major project and its ability to make money  is now in the hands of some guy who showed the greatest ability to mindlessly click on blocks," idea is something so insane I'm having trouble comprehending it. I can't imagine how anyone else at 22cans would feel about that, unless they've all been seduced / icepick lobotomised by Molyneaux to bring them on side.

He didn't name him in the video, which was pretty clearly pre-recorded ages ago, but he named him on Twitter.

And it wasn't even the who clicked the most blocks, just the last one. He might have only clicked that one block.

Thanks - I watched the video (which appears beamed out of a padded cell somewhere).

According to one interview, the winner had been playing Curiousity for about an hour because he'd heard it was going to end soon and there was a chance to win a prize.

I know, CAD Comics suck.  Bite me.   :why_so_serious:

I guess if you want to become a consultant game designer the first step is to repeatedly click cubes on a screen. Sounds like a re-enactment of Karate Kid with Molyneux as Mr Miagi and Bryan Henderson as the Kid. Wax on, wax off.

It's a crazy marketing move, but it works. They will probably also paint the random dude into a corner with a contract, so whatever.

Why do I get the feeling when Peter Molyneux faps it, nothing comes out at the end but a puff of dust shaped like his head?

I bet his wife could tell you about undelivered promises, nudge nudge.

RPS article with details about Molyneux's 'life-changing' prize. (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/05/28/too-human-curiosity-winners-godus-prize-temporary)

Please shut the fuck up forever Peter.

I don't think the word "interesting" means what Molyneaux thinks it means.

All I care about is his cut for winning a cube game.

Anyone remember text muds (like some AberMuds) where, once you get to the max level, you become a God on the game, and receive godlike powers with which you can futz with players?

It didn't work any better then than it would now.

So this is on Steam now, early access for $20. After watching a gameplay video I went ahead and took the gamble and bought it yesterday. Played it for like 12 hours. It's very reminiscent of Populous and Black & White, and I think it does a really good job of capturing the good things about those games. You need to machine-gun click though so this is the enemy of anyone with RSI. It has an interesting mechanic where it balances the speed which you can click at with the size of your empire and your technology. As you get higher tech buildings, they require clicking less often, so that allows you to expand more. Click click click.

I am tempted to get it but I am in no hurry and it seems to me that there's really no point in getting this now, with so many features still missing or unfinished, as opposed to getting it in a year or two, when the whole thing will be much richer and bugfree. As curious as I am, I think I'll wait. But please, keep reporting and let us know how it evolves.

If I could buy in for 10 bucks, I'd probably try it.  But 20 bucks, meh.

The video looked like Black & White minus the creatures.

It sounds kinda bad.

I gave this a go as well.  It's definitely very early (they estimate it at "40% done"), and very clicky, but it kept me amused for a few hours.

I really wish there was an option to require a modifier key for sculpting if it will impact the abodes of your followers.  I've knocked over quite a few homes accidentally while clicking for belief, etc.  Also, it makes me sad that I seem to have to cut down all the trees and flatten all the land for my people to build their houses.  Surely there's a better way? ^^

The behaviour of the followers is pretty simplistic so far -- I'm hoping they do more with this.

There's potential here, but it's definitely not done yet.  I'd suggest waiting and seeing unless you're bored and have nothing better to do with $20.

That actually sounds ideal.  I loved Black & White but hated the creatures.

Yes, the creatures were my least favorite part of that.

I also thought the creatures were pretty weak, but the thing I disliked most was the RTS battle portions. I just liked the more sandboxy gameplay.

The pvp-based design has me a bit wary, because crowd-designed online focused is about as far away from what I like as it gets.

See? I am even more interested now. But 40%? Thanks no, I would already be done (and annoyed) with the game by the time it gets to 80% done.

I've been realizing that there's so much stuff out there these days, that I'm usually happier waiting until stuff ships and can enjoy it in a mostly-finished form, rather than jumping on beta or pre-complete builds or whatever.

Anyone thinking of throwing money at this game should watch a little youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0Y4OtDEfKA

Totalbiscuit.  You may not like him much, just watch the first 3-6 minutes.  He gets the point across much faster than any of the other videos.

I don't understand. Clicking? Seriously? I am about to barf in Molyneuax's face.

But hey at least we found out what was the whole point  fo the Cube Curiosity game: training for Godus.

I refuse to buy this because he used the word "regenesis." If I thought that he was making a joke, even in the tiniest way, I could look past it. But he actually sees himself as some sort of mangod among game designers.

If he's right and the reason you're clicking like an insane person is because of touch devices, he deserves to be barfed on.

I spent 3 hours clicking mindlessly last night.  So far it's a neat time waster, but I don't feel like I made any progress other than making land flat.

That looks insanely terrible and tedious.

Hurts my finger just to watch.

Now that I've watched that Total Biscuit video, I have a thing to say, but it deserves its own post.

so

uh

Peter Molyneux made Farmville.

He is regenesising something. 

clickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclickclick

I looked at the steam video for this, and was almost completely nonplussed.  It looked like a populous style game, except with a whole lot more tedium.

A shame, really.  I'd love to see an updated populous.

Maybe since it's only 40% done, they're getting ready to patch in the thing that clicks for you.

On the sixth day, god said "this is really fucking tedious, I'm off to play GTA" and never looked back.

There's already a clicking game that is superior.

http://orteil.dashnet.org/cookieclicker/

Yeah... I think I need some methadone to STOP playing that.

Cookies in bank :
28,452,137,058,898
Cookies baked (all time) :
948,136,500,567,447
Game started : 10 days ago
Buildings owned : 1,049
Cookies per second : 4,655,462,256.1 (multiplier : 690%)
Cookies per click : 186,331,075.6
Cookie clicks : 8,773
Hand-made cookies : 639,195,578,639
Golden cookie clicks : 12

Don't judge me.

Edit: Grandmatriarchs status : angered

Amateur.  I have well over 11 quadrillion cookies baked all time.

Bonus if you play cookie clicker while listening to cookie thumper (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8nrF5aXPlQ).

As much as I dislike stupid web games, I put on some Iron Maiden and tapped bass lines on a touchpad while reading docs the other day. So many hand made cookies.

Oh thank god I'm not the only one.  I felt so much shame while playing this.

I work with a Bronie who is absolutely addicted to the cookie game.

Just sayin.

I've never actually met a Bronie.  My life is better for this.

As for click click click.  Cannot do.  Ouch, my arm.

Oh, there went my productivity.

Must.  Make.  COOKIES!

Does it end? Do the grandmas usurp me?

The Grandmapocalypse doesn't seem to do anything but make the lucky cookies do different things (and turn red).

Which makes the grandma ultimate upgrades nearly useless, as my primary source of cookies at "end game" is lucky golden cookies.

Did you revoke the elder pact? If so, then yes, you went back to golden cookies. It's there for entertainment.

I love this.

Yep this ruined my thursday and friday at work.

This thing is fucking evil.

Yeah, there went my friday...

Yeah, ditto.


It's amazing how people can create stupid browser games that are immediately and massively more enjoyable to play than the stuff game 'visionaries' shit out decade after decade while burning through millions of dollars.   :oh_i_see:

The problem with seers, regardless of their label - in this case, visionary, is that they tend to be blind.

Thanks for wasting my evening.

Fine, you assholes, I'll try the damn cookie game!

One of us!  One of us!

We are many.  We are one.

Cookies need their own thread.

So, back to Godus.  I played through one iteration and I enjoyed it but that is probably largely due to my whole land sculpting fetish.

I ran into quite a few cockblocks, not unexpected since it's "40% Beta" or whatever, but it was kind of annoying when I ran into them.   The resources from chests are random, and I would have liked to finish a few of the tech-tree things like mining (since I have a gem patch I can't mine), I ran out of chests before I could finish them off.  I also ran out of land expansion shrines, so my expansion capped at about 5k citizens (though I have plenty of space for more, it is now finite.)

I ran out of faith all the fucking time.  The Settlement statues were nice in the beginning, but after like 3 you have to spend gems on them too, and then after a few more hours you are back to clicking on individual houses to get the faith to sculpt the land which is horrendously expensive.  This is doubly irritating since the view/draw distance is a tiny box.

Despite the irritations and my newly inflamed carpal tunnel (which was exacerbated by fuck you cookie clicker) I enjoyed dicking around with the game.  I was tempted to restart, but found you have to uninstall and delete the folder and then reinstall in order to do so, so I figured I'll just wait for the next big update.

All in all I felt it was worth the 20 bucks so far, and will look forward to more content.

This echoes my experience pretty well. I have my doubts about the ability of the game to somehow work through the apparent desired tech tree of going through the space age (seriously?), but I also feel that the game as is, plus a bit more, is easily worth the $20.

I have to say that I like how the game deals with micromanagement. I think the amount of clicking required as a baseline is like 5x too high, but the underlying concept of requiring less management per unit as your empire grows larger is fucking genius.

Every time I play it I inevitably give myself some exponent of cookies, get bored and leave. :(

I just don't get all the clicking.

These two are related.

Clicking? What clicking?

That's what browser tabs are for.