Exodus Of The Machine Teaser 1

[Vyndicu]

Hmm I can do better I think. Video to show the behavior in action and a save game. The reason why I am using a video to show it because the execution can be pretty tricky to pull of but it can be done. I have something to do this afternoon, I am a video game programmer too on Unity, so I might do it tomorrow.

[x4000]

Our main fear with this game is that it will be perceived as a certain genre that it is not, that is negatively received.  In the same way that Tidalis is perceived as a match 3 game.  To have that perception is going to be the kiss of death, so very quickly we have to establish broadly what kind of game this really is.  And that's why I feel so strongly that the original OT reference should be first. 

To me the setting and so forth are irrelevant to explain, to be honest, as that will be conveyed via the visuals simultaneous with the rest of what is going on.  It's clearly sci-fi on a planet, etc.  And even the visual of the crashed ship is pretty clear in a non-subtle way.

But I do agree with you very much on getting the hook(s) in there as soon as possible.  Normally I would even go so far as to definitely put that first, but in this case we want to quickly establish broad genre because the risk of mistaken identity is reasonably high.

[Panopticon]

The most important thing for this game is the ability to name the people in your party. That way you can show all your buddies what kind of gruesome fates they met with screenshots.

Also wow this is totally out of nowhere! The concept does sound like a lot of fun and I really love the March series. Most exciting for me personally is getting a ground level view of the action in AI War. AI War has the potential for some really rich story telling with its fun and interesting factions. I know I'm really hoping that the Neinzul play a role in the game for instance. I'd love to see more them close up.

[chemical_art]

Our main fear with this game is that it will be perceived as a certain genre that it is not, that is negatively received.  In the same way that Tidalis is perceived as a match 3 game.  To have that perception is going to be the kiss of death, so very quickly we have to establish broadly what kind of game this really is.  And that's why I feel so strongly that the original OT reference should be first. 

To me the setting and so forth are irrelevant to explain, to be honest, as that will be conveyed via the visuals simultaneous with the rest of what is going on.  It's clearly sci-fi on a planet, etc.  And even the visual of the crashed ship is pretty clear in a non-subtle way.

But I do agree with you very much on getting the hook(s) in there as soon as possible.  Normally I would even go so far as to definitely put that first, but in this case we want to quickly establish broad genre because the risk of mistaken identity is reasonably high.

I see, but from what I understand you are already lumping yourselves into so tightly to a specific single game game.

If you think you'll get more sales by putting yourselves into OT's shadow rather then trying to highlight your own game, that is fine. Because in effect that is what you are.

Any time I see a game trying, from the very start, being like another game, that is a pass. This includes trailers.

[chemical_art]

Just as an example of the genre being crowded from under OT's shadow, I give this which hasn't even been released for 2 weeks:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/233740/


On some level I find it silly for arcen to try to make an unique game, then so quickly brand it as another game.

[x4000]

Well, you're only one person, and we're not just marketing it to you (as you've noted).  The bulk of people seem to have some degree of fond memories of OT, and there have been few games that have done anything remotely close to it in the intervening 20+ years.  A few parodies and so forth aside.

And unlike the parodies, we're not trying to just ape OT and add a few twists.  This is legitimately very different, but starting from the starting point of "you know oregon trail?  This is vaguely like that..." is about as helpful as we can get.  Human beings are big associative machines when it comes to our brains.  When we encounter something new we want to know "what it's like that we already understand," and then we just have to keep track of the differences. 

By likening this to OT from the start, we get that likening part out of the way immediately, and then move into the differences.  That's my intent, anyhow.  When it comes to how people would otherwise perform the likening, they would simply form that opinion based on the visuals alone, which would lead them to erroneous conclusions depending on what sorts of games they've played in the past.  In the same way that you jump to "match 3" with Tidalis even though it's nothing of the sort.  We really have to nip that in the bud before that first impression can be made.

[keith.lamothe]

The most important thing for this game is the ability to name the people in your party.

Sorry, the characters in the game have defined backstories and personalities and whatnot.  I mean, I guess I could let you change their names, but it seems a little strange

[chemical_art]

Our main fear with this game is that it will be perceived as a certain genre that it is not, that is negatively received.  In the same way that Tidalis is perceived as a match 3 game.  To have that perception is going to be the kiss of death, so very quickly we have to establish broadly what kind of game this really is.  And that's why I feel so strongly that the original OT reference should be first. 

To me the setting and so forth are irrelevant to explain, to be honest, as that will be conveyed via the visuals simultaneous with the rest of what is going on.  It's clearly sci-fi on a planet, etc.  And even the visual of the crashed ship is pretty clear in a non-subtle way.

But I do agree with you very much on getting the hook(s) in there as soon as possible.  Normally I would even go so far as to definitely put that first, but in this case we want to quickly establish broad genre because the risk of mistaken identity is reasonably high.

Sorry, on phone, edits are wonky.

To bring up very similar genre games that play very different, I bring up the 90's RTS genre: Total Annhilation, Command and Conquer, and Starcraft.

None of these games compared themselves to each other, rather they strived in both practice and in advertising to be their own. None of them (as far as I know) said "we have X, so we are better". They just were. They highlighted what they did, and the player very quickly figured out what they were.

I know you are worrying about wrong preceptions, but giving a OT shoutout as your first thing will give the perception you are doing like that zombie did thing, you are almost modding it into a sci-fi setting. I know you are doing that, so why muddle the issue?

[x4000]

Just as an example of the genre being crowded from under OT's shadow, I give this which hasn't even been released for 2 weeks:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/233740/

I'm aware of that game, and it's the main one I was referring to in my last post (which came after this post of yours).  However, it's the main OT-like game I've ever seen since OT.  I'm sure there were others, but they did not make it high on the radar to my knowledge.

On some level I find it silly for arcen to try to make an unique game, then so quickly brand it as another game.

You're not thinking fourth dimensionally!   Okay, just kidding.

What I mean is, the first impression that the player has is going to come from somewhere, right?  It's either going to be what we say, or what they see.  And the first thing they see is going to make them think of the wrong genre.  Not a genre that is overly liked.  Not remotely the genre the game is.  So we want to blunt that impression by likening the game to the vaguest thing that is close to it, and then go from there.  We have to perform that first likening for players because otherwise they will do so themselves.  If we do it, at least we get to control what it is compared to, versus if players do it that's not the case.

[x4000]

To bring up very similar genre games that play very different, I bring up the 90's RTS genre: Total Annhilation, Command and Conquer, and Starcraft.

None of these games compared themselves to each other, rather they strived in both practice and in advertising to be their own. None of them (as far as I know) said "we have X, so we are better". They just were. They highlighted what they did, and the player very quickly figured out what they were.

Yes, but all of these games looked like RTS games.  If they had looked like... say, a Kart Racer, then that would have been problematic.  They would have had to establish "this is an RTS!" pretty fast.  This is the sort of problem that Exodus is going to have.  It looks like a certain other genre that is not strategic or tactical at all.  There is a very good reason for that, and in fact I love how it looks, but first impressions by players not familiar with it need to have a frame of reference.

All three games you mention look like the genre they demonstrably were, so that was an easy sell.  Just show footage and people go "oh, an RTS" and you just then launch into what makes them unique from other RTSes.  The copy didn't have to specifically try to establish the genre, which doesn't really exist, in the first place.  When Dune 2 came out, for instance, there were no RTS games.  So it had to try to explain just what the heck it was.  This is the situation Arcen repeatedly finds itself in, except with AI War and Tidalis I guess.

I know you are worrying about wrong preceptions, but giving a OT shoutout as your first thing will give the perception you are doing like that zombie did thing, you are almost modding it into a sci-fi setting. I know you are doing that, so why muddle the issue?

People thinking that this is a mod of OT is preferable to what they will think of via the visuals alone, is what I mean.  Having people think that Tidalis is like Panel de Pon would have been much preferable to them thinking it was another match 3 clone, for instance.  But the visuals made them think the latter, even though the former was vastly closer to the mark (though still woefully incorrect).

Put another way, if we just showed a short bit of raw footage of the game, people would never guess the genre.

[chemical_art]

Well, you're only one person, and we're not just marketing it to you (as you've noted).  The bulk of people seem to have some degree of fond memories of OT, and there have been few games that have done anything remotely close to it in the intervening 20+ years.  A few parodies and so forth aside.

And unlike the parodies, we're not trying to just ape OT and add a few twists.  This is legitimately very different, but starting from the starting point of "you know oregon trail?  This is vaguely like that..." is about as helpful as we can get.  Human beings are big associative machines when it comes to our brains.  When we encounter something new we want to know "what it's like that we already understand," and then we just have to keep track of the differences. 

By likening this to OT from the start, we get that likening part out of the way immediately, and then move into the differences.  That's my intent, anyhow.  When it comes to how people would otherwise perform the likening, they would simply form that opinion based on the visuals alone, which would lead them to erroneous conclusions depending on what sorts of games they've played in the past.  In the same way that you jump to "match 3" with Tidalis even though it's nothing of the sort.  We really have to nip that in the bud before that first impression can be made.

AI War didn't have to compare itself to any strategy game, yet it did fine. FTL didn't either, yet it did fine.

As a counterpoint, I give this trailer:

http://store.steampowered.com/app/212680/

FTL didn't compare itself to another game: It jumped right into the game, and the genre explained itself. It did fine. I've bashed one mechanic of it hard, but I still enjoyed it.

I'm hoping your fear of Tidalis doesn't burn you too hard. The goal is intrigue. If you setup too hard it is like another game, you lose some intrigue because the player has already done it before.

[keith.lamothe]

Put another way, if we just showed a short bit of raw footage of the game, people would never guess the genre.

Perhaps this is the problem

[chemical_art]

Put another way, if we just showed a short bit of raw footage of the game, people would never guess the genre.

Perhaps this is the problem

On some level it is.

I literally open my mouth, shut it, then scrunched my eyes at what I'm reading it.

It looks strategic, but plays like OT? ...

...

...

My head hurts. I'm not sure if this is good or bad. I do know you've already identified yourself this will be hard to get the right impression, for better or worst.

[keith.lamothe]

My head hurts.

My work is done here

[Wingflier]

To be fair chemical_art, trailers were done VERY differently back in the day: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4Z6Rmbtk1k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrCPffbYDZw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGAqJzWfOEs

Of the three games you mention, these show little or no gameplay. I'm sorry but that sh*t would not fly in today's game market, nobody would buy those games.

And yes, FTL got away with marketing itself without mentioning another game BUT, as far as I'm concerned, it's so completely unlike any other game (I've heard of at least), that it would have done itself an injustice to compare itself to another game.

Another TBS that came out recently was XCom: Enemy Unknown. It was made by a different developer, and is a completely different game than the original (only moderate similarities), yet it sold itself as a sequel to those and did fantastically.  Fallout 3 had almost NOTHING in common with Fallout 1 and 2.  Fallout 1 and 2 were top-down TBS games, Fallout 3 was a sandbox FPS/RPG game.

To say that alluding to old, nostalgic games that people loved does not help sales is insanity, especially if those games are part of the structure which you're basing yours on. I would personally be pretty upset with Arcen if they did made an Oregon Trail-like game, and didn't somehow include that in their trailer. That would seem like a huge rip-off to me.

I agree with you. I don't particularly have fond memories of Oregon Trail, I always thought it was kind of a stupid game. But I remember as a kid that EVERYONE ELSE did, and that's what's important. Hell I know people who didn't like MARIO. Should Nintendo stop making sequels because there's a few outspoken people who never liked it?

So what I'm saying is that I don't think it's a mistake to mention old, nostalgic games as your marketing ploy. Yes, it needs to be games that people actually liked, but I think you've got a huge potential playerbase for Oregon Trail "sequels".