KickStarter Hero-U: Rogue to Redemption - adventure-RPG from the creators of Quest for Glory

[MRY]

The original pitch was for a top-down 2D game using the MacGuffin's Curse engine. Unity wasn't in the picture.

It's like McGuffin's Curse was made in Unity or something, who knows?

When making MacGuffin’s Curse the first thing I did was look at the available engines and determine which supported the most platforms, had the best features, support and community. Unity ticked all these boxes.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1878147873/hero-u-rogue-to-redemption/posts/350176

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Boleskine]

Original pitch - 2D top-down tile-based game using MacGuffin's Curse engine
1st evolution - Unity engine, 3D characters, 2D backgrounds
2nd evolution (after campaign finished) - full 3D environments in Unity

Erm, nope. They never had a 3D characters on 2D backgrounds phase. At first floors and walls became 3D, then all new environmental objects, then the characters, then some old environmental objects.

I got that mixed up, then. My mistake.

The original pitch was for a top-down 2D game using the MacGuffin's Curse engine. Unity wasn't in the picture.

It's like McGuffin's Curse was made in Unity or something, who knows?

When making MacGuffin’s Curse the first thing I did was look at the available engines and determine which supported the most platforms, had the best features, support and community. Unity ticked all these boxes.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1878147873/hero-u-rogue-to-redemption/posts/350176

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A better way of saying it would have been scrapping an existing, Unity-based engine for 2D top-down games and starting from scratch in Unity to make a 3D game. That's why the original Brawsome devs left the project (change in concept/design from what they were recruited to do), or so I thought.

More food for thought:

https://www.kickstarter.com/project...ption/comments?cursor=9828379#comment-9828378

Other games have supplemented their Kickstarter funding with venture capital. We probably should have done that. Big Corey mistake was turning down a $500,000 investment in 2013.

https://www.kickstarter.com/project...ption/comments?cursor=9823187#comment-9823186

You don't entirely switch engines mid-stream without a good reason. If we had the 2015 or even the 2014 crystal ball to look back at that time, there was plenty of reason. But stop assuming that there is anything unusual here. We budgeted $650K for the project (which would have been at least an $800K Kickstarter campaign), asked $400K because that was the most we could expect, and have done our best with what we had.

And it sounds like that $650K was for the 2D game, before switching to 3D.

 

[V_K]

That's why the original Brawsome devs left the project (change in concept/design from what they were recruited to do), or so I thought.

From what I remember, it was the other way around. First Brawsome left the project, so Coles had no more use for their engine. That's when the middle iteration, with 3D walls and 2D everything else surfaced. Then they hired some other people (also vets I think) and they convinced the Coles to go full 3D.

 

[Boleskine]

That's why the original Brawsome devs left the project (change in concept/design from what they were recruited to do), or so I thought.

From what I remember, it was the other way around. First Brawsome left the project, so Coreys had no more use for their engine. That's when the middle iteration, with 3D walls and 2D everything else surfaced. Then they hired some other people (also vets I think) and they convinced the Coreys to go full 3D.

I thought Brawsome left when the Coles decided to do an isometric perspective rather than the top-down one. Maybe it was a mutual decision made concurrently.

Either way, going full 3D was probably a better choice than mixing 3D and 2D to streamline everything, but it would have been nice to see how that 2D game might have turned out.

 

[V_K]

I thought Brawsome left when the Coles decided to do an isometric perspective rather than the top-down one. Maybe it was a mutual decision made concurrently.

Nope, here's Corey's less "ponies and rainbows" account of what happened:

A key developer left, but allowed us to use his code. [pretty sure that's Brawsome and their engine - what else could it be?] Three months later we learned that our other developers could not do anything useful with it. (In fact, it took us that long to find a new team.) We knew that we and our art director did not like the original look of the game, but we thought we could work around it. In practice, turning a top-down engine into an isometric one had too many challenges. By that time (Spring 2013), I knew the budget had to be extended, and started talking with outside investors. I disclosed all of that in project updates. To imply that I should somehow have known those problems would occur before I started the project... well, I wouldn't have started it at all in that case. Over the course of the next six months of frustration, we discovered that a lot of hard work by some pretty good people was not turning into anything we could use. The 2D isometric game looked mediocre, and we had many complaints about the 2D animation. So we decided to switch to 3D mixed with 2D so we could keep as many assets as possible. At that point, we completely broke the budget by spending $85K on new character models and animation. At that point, we started going into debt, and I chose to delay the project rather than hiring full-time programmers before we were ready for them. At each stage, we appeared to be locked into a technology and process, and starting over appeared to make zero sense.

 

[MRY]

Other than thinking "Unity wasn't in the picture" when they were using the McGuffin's Curse engine, and that they voluntarily chose to abandon that engine, I guess Boleskine's point still stands though. :D

 

[Boleskine]

I thought Brawsome left when the Coles decided to do an isometric perspective rather than the top-down one. Maybe it was a mutual decision made concurrently.

Nope, here's Corey's less "ponies and rainbows" account of what happened:

A key developer left, but allowed us to use his code. [pretty sure that's Brawsome and their engine - what else could it be?] Three months later we learned that our other developers could not do anything useful with it. (In fact, it took us that long to find a new team.) We knew that we and our art director did not like the original look of the game, but we thought we could work around it. In practice, turning a top-down engine into an isometric one had too many challenges. By that time (Spring 2013), I knew the budget had to be extended, and started talking with outside investors. I disclosed all of that in project updates. To imply that I should somehow have known those problems would occur before I started the project... well, I wouldn't have started it at all in that case. Over the course of the next six months of frustration, we discovered that a lot of hard work by some pretty good people was not turning into anything we could use. The 2D isometric game looked mediocre, and we had many complaints about the 2D animation. So we decided to switch to 3D mixed with 2D so we could keep as many assets as possible. At that point, we completely broke the budget by spending $85K on new character models and animation. At that point, we started going into debt, and I chose to delay the project rather than hiring full-time programmers before we were ready for them. At each stage, we appeared to be locked into a technology and process, and starting over appeared to make zero sense.

Something still isn't adding up for me.

A key developer left, but allowed us to use his code. Three months later we learned that our other developers could not do anything useful with it.

They announced on December 5, 2012 that the game was switching to an isometric perspective. The post you shared suggests there was at least a three month gap between Brawsome leaving Hero-U and the decision to use an isometric perspective. Yet, Brawsome was still part of the team as of November 19, 2012.

In practice, turning a top-down engine into an isometric one had too many challenges. By that time (Spring 2013), I knew the budget had to be extended

This seems to refer to spending December 2012 through spring 2013 looking for a new team and doing preliminary work on the 2D isometric game. Then,

Over the course of the next six months of frustration, we discovered that a lot of hard work by some pretty good people was not turning into anything we could use. The 2D isometric game looked mediocre

This leads into September/October 2013. They released a demo on November 18, 2013. One week later the Coles then said the characters would switch to 3D.

Maybe I'm overlooking something but the timing of when Brawsome left and when they exactly switched to isometric is a little muddled.

 

[V_K]

There's actually a reference to timing in one of the comments you cited yourself:

But we had a very experienced developer who had just finished two excellent games, and we had no clue that he would drop the project one month in because $400K was not enough to pay him and the rest of the team. He had expected the campaign to reach $800K. It didn't.

So apparently he left right after the campaign ended - which happened on November 20. So I guess they did decide to switch to isometric about the same time, but at first were trying to do that in Brawsome engine. Apparently, what happened 3 months in is they realised Brawsome engine couldn't support iso.

 

[Boleskine]

That makes sense. They were trying to do isometric in the Brawsome engine without the Brawsome devs. After about three months they started over with a new engine, still focusing on 2D isometric perspective. Then in late 2013 and early 2014 the transition to full 3D began.

edit - thinking more, then it seems quite possible that the Brawsome devs left the project once the Coles decided to switch to isometric, as I suggested a few posts above. From that December 5 2012 update:

We are delighted to announce that Terry Robinson has joined the Hero-U: Rogue to Redemption team as Lead Artist... Terry's first "modest" change was to scrap the square tile interface in favor of an isometric art style.

My interpretation is that the Coles decided to go isometric after the campaign finished (November 20), based on public feedback and their own reevaluation of what kind of game they wanted to make. Upon learning this change the Brawsome developer left Hero-U because:

a) The game design/approach changed from what was originally agreed (top-down, similar to MacGuffin's Curse).
b) Further work on the Brawsome engine may have been required, adding to time and cost of development (not originally planned).
c) The estimated budget for the game ($650K after fees/rewards) outweighed what was raised ($400K before fees/rewards).
d) The budget and raised figures from (c) were obsolete once the Coles decided to go isometric, around November 20.

So they possibly didn't have faith in the project direction and decided to leave, or the Brawsome dev and the Coles couldn't otherwise agree on an updated contract.

 

[MRY]

The idea that developers involved themselves in Kickstarter campaigns knowing that they could not be made at the requested budget enrages me every time. The Coles at least seem to have made an honest mistake, but based on the quote above, it sounds like the Brawsome guy knew exactly what he was doing. That said, there are many sides to such stories, so who knows how it really went down?

 

[J1M]

There's actually a reference to timing in one of the comments you cited yourself:

But we had a very experienced developer who had just finished two excellent games, and we had no clue that he would drop the project one month in because $400K was not enough to pay him and the rest of the team. He had expected the campaign to reach $800K. It didn't.

So apparently he left right after the campaign ended - which happened on November 20. So I guess they did decide to switch to isometric about the same time, but at first were trying to do that in Brawsome engine. Apparently, what happened 3 months in is they realised Brawsome engine couldn't support iso.

Smart guy. This thing is going to end up with a longer development cycle than World of Warcraft.

 

[J1M]

The idea that developers involved themselves in Kickstarter campaigns knowing that they could not be made at the requested budget enrages me every time. The Coles at least seem to have made an honest mistake, but based on the quote above, it sounds like the Brawsome guy knew exactly what he was doing. That said, there are many sides to such stories, so who knows how it really went down?

What if a developer expects a game to cost $10 and asks kickstarter for $6? If they are willing to spend $4 of their own savings, what is wrong with going to kickstarter before making that investment? (Feel free to add zeroes to the example.)

 

[MRY]

The idea that developers involved themselves in Kickstarter campaigns knowing that they could not be made at the requested budget enrages me every time. The Coles at least seem to have made an honest mistake, but based on the quote above, it sounds like the Brawsome guy knew exactly what he was doing. That said, there are many sides to such stories, so who knows how it really went down?

What if a developer expects a game to cost $10 and asks kickstarter for $6? If they are willing to spend $4 of their own savings, what is wrong with going to kickstarter before making that investment? (Feel free to add zeroes to the example.)

A longwinded answer follows.

Well, look, in some respects I am a bitter cynic and in some respects -- perhaps as the flipside of the same coin -- I am an unreasonable idealist. At its core, Kickstarter permits something that is a wonderful good: it allows voluntary price discrimination and micro-patronage such that wealthy, passionate people can finance a product that market forces won't otherwise create. It is undeniable that Kickstarter has generated some such products, and as someone who has backed ~350 projects in tithe of Primordia's success, I obviously think that it's a pretty nifty thing.

But, I think that Kickstarter has some inherent qualities that degrade the relationship between a developer and his fans. It encourages manipulating your fans with things like false scarcity ("Early Bird Specials") and upselling, and almost every campaign turns out, in retrospect, to have included materially false and misleading statements. (Note: I am not saying fraudulent statements because in many cases these things were probably said without any intent to deceive.) Finally, for a platform that at its best allows creators to create free from market dictates, it turns out that many times it replicates the worst pandering of the market -- for instances, people rightly think it is absurd when some rich film producer's kid who can't act gets a speaking line in a movie, but for a while it was standard for Kickstarter projects to give comparable roles to backers. The bottom line is that for almost every major Kickstarter, I suspect that many backers, in some cases most, would not have backed the game knowing how it turned out. So while the system at its best is wonderful, at its worst it degenerates to developers misleading their customers and customers vandalizing the games.

In that context, I have no objection to a Kickstarter pitch that says, "This game will cost $10 to make. I am going to pay $4 of that from my own pocket, but I need the other $6 from you." I am less comfortable with, "This game will cost $6 to make," when it in fact will take $10. What begins in lies, tends to end in lies.

 

[Mustawd]

The idea that developers involved themselves in Kickstarter campaigns knowing that they could not be made at the requested budget enrages me every time. The Coles at least seem to have made an honest mistake, but based on the quote above, it sounds like the Brawsome guy knew exactly what he was doing. That said, there are many sides to such stories, so who knows how it really went down?

What if a developer expects a game to cost $10 and asks kickstarter for $6? If they are willing to spend $4 of their own savings, what is wrong with going to kickstarter before making that investment? (Feel free to add zeroes to the example.)

The issue is that it creates the false impression that the stated goal of the kickstarter is how much it's budgeted for. So basically, if you reach your goal of $6, the backers think the game has a pretty good chance of being completed.

But it's a slippery slope to not disclose how much is going to be covered by the devs and how much is going to be covered by the KS campaign. What if the KS is only $3 and the Devs say they are gonna cover $7 from savings? Sounds like the same thing no? But let's add some zeroes to that.

Scenario 1:
KS campaign - $600,000
Dev cover - $400,000
Budget - $1,000,000

Scenario 2:
KS campaign - $300,000
Dev cover - $700,000
Budget - $1,000,000

Scenario 3:
KS campaign - $600,000
Dev cover - $1,000,000
Budget - $1,600,000


Compare the first two scenarios. What comes to mind? If I'm a potential backer I instantly become more skeptical of Scenario #2. It's almost $1M the devs need to raise themselves. A second mortgage might be enough to cover Scenario 1 IF you have a nice house. Scenario 2, for a couple like the Coles, would seem a bit optimistic at best. So as a backer I might not back scenario #2 as it's less likely to come to fruition.

Scenario #3 is an example of a slippery slope of devs backing bigger and bifgger amounts of the shortfall. The more they cover the more the chances are that it won't get made UNLESS they have money in hand. Even then, the larger shortfall increases the pain if you don't budget properly.

The point you need to remember is that all this is assuming we know that the KS will only cover portion of the budget AND that the devs are good at budgeting AND that they are transparent with how much it will really cost. And that is not always the case. As a KS backer, the trend of KS's not covering the budget of a game is disturbing and feels dishonest. But it's also a problem than can quickly become worse if people let devs get away with it.

 

[J1M]

I agree that a kickstarter campaign should divulge how much the developers have already invested and how much they intend to invest personally. That is good practice regardless of the numbers involved.

The shenanigans around stretch goals and low-ball goals are a result of kickstarter allowing fundraising beyond the stated goal. That would be less of a problem if the campaign was automatically closed the day after it succeeded.

 

[hello friend]

What bothers me is how a lot of projects seem to only ask for the amount needed for the budget of their first game. Kickstarter, by it's very nature, is a somewhat temporary thing in it's usefulness in funding games. They should be asking for more than they need so that they have some an easier time of funding their next game. Otherwise the company will, like as not, go bankrupt after the game is released. They're not going to get as much out of Kickstarter the second time. And if the development of the first game drags on they'll have a little wiggle room to get it out the door without trashing their reputation by underdelivering. It's not sustainable.

 

[Kz3r0]

Finally, for a platform that at its best allows creators to create free from market dictates, it turns out that many times it replicates the worst pandering of the market

Insert Adam Smith laughter here.
Kickstarter is part of a capitalist system and essentially a direct to market platform, all the idealist crap is for misguided people that don't understand life.

 

[MRY]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ And all altruism is simply the selfish desire for the pleasure of generosity! But at some point it is better to use language to distinguish between concepts like a system that prices goods at a single efficient level that maximizes profits and a system that runs via voluntary price discrimination and micro-patronage, even if both of them involve the trading of goods for money in a non-state-controlled system. Ordinary game markets (like Steam) are not particularly effective at involuntary price discrimination (e.g., regional pricing) let alone voluntary price discrimination. Even if you look at, say, the Humble Bundle system, it has increasingly moved away from voluntary price discrimination by using tiers, required minimums, etc. Kickstarter has proven uniquely (in my view) effective at getting people to pay extra for the same product because they want it to succeed.

But if it feels better to say that it's all capitalism, by all means, I certainly won't stop you! It's all descriptivist language!

 

[Beastro]

There definitely is a bit of a Pavlov's Dog element to achievements for some - I know people who collect them obsessively, but whatever. For QFI, we tried to make them fun, cheeky and even stupid something. Like, I believe you get an award for taking a piss on things. I mean, come on, we literally took the piss out of achievements on that one. I think on Steam you can make some achievements hidden, as well, from public view, so I'll probably do a few of those in the future too.


Bt

The only appeal I can see to "achievements" isn't from doing things you're intended to do in games, but for really odd, out there things that usually come from repeated playthroughs.

I put that in quotations because true achievements are those players set for themselves, like that odd thing about JRPGs that makes a lot of people want to try to collect every item in the game, selling only copies, so by the end they have one of everything. Such a thing works because it's an odd personal goal, not something the developers laid out for you to do. Achievements as we know them I feel are another way for developers to try to get players to play a game how they want or to appease the Pavlovian addicts that would bitch like mad if they weren't given the busy work to do to see that 100% instead of setting the goals themselves.

 

[passerby]

I've never played QfG and did't care about this project.

As an outsider I have to say, the artstyle is super cute, better than the original 2d pitch. The textures are painted in the style that makes it look as beautifull as 2d games from the 90s imo.
It's also much easier and faster to iterate on design in fully fledged engine like Unity. So the game may be more of a game, as oppossed to completely scripted point and click interactive paintings called adventure games.
It looks more interesting to me personally, but it all became way more risky than the original pitch, I hope they'll manage to get their money back.

 

[Irenaeus]

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Boleskine]

Have any backers gotten invites to the closed alpha yet? I didn't back but am curious if the testing has begun.

edit - details here: http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...of-quest-for-glory.77088/page-40#post-5155597

We will accept a small number to do the first outside tests and help us shake down the reporting system. The second alpha will go out to a larger number, and the full alpha version will be made available to everyone at that level.

Look for another update by the end of June with detailed Alpha Test news and instructions.

I know we talk about Hero-U's development quite a bit but I do think the game has shown very good progress in the last year or two. At this point it will probably be really helpful for the Coles to have many hands and eyes on the game to give them the feedback they need to polish it and address any major flaws.

 

[Infinitron]

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/transolargames/hero-u-rogue-to-redemption/posts/1965033

Mysterious Events in Hero-U

There are mysterious forces behind Hero-U. It is not obvious who is actually financing the school, or why. As for the greater society of Sardonia, we don't spell it out in the game, but obviously Thief and Rogue are not the only professions. However...

Even though Shawn is a poor young man with an overworked single mother and apparently no connections, someone is looking out for him. Maybe more than one "someone". That results in an invitation to audition for the Thieves' Guild, and then a mandatory "invitation" to Hero-U.

Nothing happens by coincidence. The existence of the school, and the fact that it's built on a "haunted" old castle, is also not a coincidence.

Players will learn something about these mysteries in Hero-U: Rogue to Redemption. Other stories will be developed in future games of the series, and some of it will stay locked in our “Game Bible” as background for all of the games and game events.

Exploring the Sea Caves

Equally Mysterious Hero-U Game Development
It would be wonderful if making a game was like turning on a light switch, or even like taking a collection of Legos and turning them into a stunning model.

Actually, it *is* a lot like that, only there are about 600 models to put together… or maybe 6000. The mystery is that we can even put so many distinct pieces together to create one coherent game.

Every week, Hero-U creeps a little closer to being a complete, fun game. Along the way, JP and Al continue to draw, paint, model, and animate the game. Joshua, Cidney, and our secret programmers move between bringing the game to life and squashing bugs.

For a little more about the importance of each team member to every game we’ve made, and to Hero-U in particular, I posted an article to the Hero-U blog, http://hero-u.com/it-takes-a-team/.

Ryan Grogan has recently returned to the team to help us finish the music and soundscape to make Rogue to Redemption sound as amazing as it looks.

Josh Mandel and Lori alternate between tickling your funny bones and writing moments of suspense, drama, and tenderness. Yes, they’re both still writing game content as we get feedback on parts of the game that need more direction or energy.

The story of Hero-U: Rogue to Redemption is a difficult balancing act as we strive to make Shawn O’Conner a hero even though he’ll always be a rogue. Developing the game is like juggling hundreds of spinning plates at a time. Only when every one of them is in balance will the game be complete. After almost five years of development, it’s all coming together.

Now it’s time to begin outside testing and find out how much more still needs to be done.

The Tower Garden at Night

Alpha Test Time
There are a lot of steps involved in getting a game to outside testers. We’ve developed our own built-in bug reporter that catches both software errors and player reports. Once they appear in our testing database, we do “triage” on them and assign them to specific team members to fix.

Another step is contacting and working with backers. I’m starting out with a small subset of our Alpha Test level backers to be our first guinea pigs, er, brave testers. Once we have the reporting tool adequately tested, I’ll expand that by stages to all 350 Alpha Test backers. We are asking each tester to sign a Beta Test agreement similar to the ones used by Electronic Arts and other major game developers. We don’t want anyone revealing the mysteries too soon!

Once our first testers have looked at the game in sections, we’ll put everything together for a full Beta test accessible to all 2000 backers who chose a Beta Test level. This will be a full, feature-complete game, but it will probably still have some rough edges. Waves of Beta tests will continue until we are satisfied that Hero-U: Rogue to Redemption is ready for release.

The initial test build includes the first few weeks at Hero-U. We’ve disabled the second half of the game and all combat areas. Over the next couple of months, we’ll gradually open up additional areas of the game for testing. We’ll move from Alpha to Beta testing once we’ve revealed the entire game.

As always, keep your information current at https://hero-u-adventure-role-playing-game.backerkit.com and watch your email for your alpha or beta test invitation.

Discovering Dark Places

From Mystery to Discovery
This has been an epic game development process, and even when the game is tested and released, there will be much more to come. We will keep posting updates and stay in touch with the Hero-U community. Then it will be time to begin work on Hero-U: Wizard’s Way and the rest of the series.

Like the Starship Enterprise, once we complete our five year mission, there will be new ports, new destinations, and new crew to take us all where no one has gone before.

Speaking of which...


Space Station in Initiative: Red Dawn

A Space Exploration Game Coming to Kickstarter
Initiative: Red Dawn looks like a pretty interesting game. You build a space center, hire scientists and other employees, craft buildings and spaceship parts, and trade with other players to build your rockets and launch vehicles with which to explore Mars and set up a base. I’d class it as a “business simulation, building, and space exploration” game.

The developers are currently building up their mailing list to prepare for a successful Kickstarter launch. They’re going about this the right way, so please check out the game and support it if it appeals to you. Their web site is http://initiative.online. You can watch a game trailer at https://youtu.be/1SetetQ79Wg.

 

[Tramboi]

"Other games in the series"... I'd love to be as optimistic.
But if they get the engine right and stop being so volatile about technology, they might be able to produce a good series.

 

[Invictus]

Quest for Glory is one of my favorite series from my childhood and seeing the Coles have so much problems to make this new project come through... the graphics look lovely and I sincerly hope this comes through