Octopus Overlords

coopasonic wrote:I guess Lordnine didn't want to pimp it himself, so I will...

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/15 ... -corporate

Relaunching in October. It sounds like the team has a solid plan for a strong re-launch.

My unsolicited two cents: consider replacing the box cover art. The T-rex looks static and old-fashioned compared to modern renderings, and the image itself is very busy: T-rex, jungle, rain, wall, humans, and a squiggly targeting overlay.

Thanks for the input. Some other people have commented that they don’t like the T-Rex but are really bad at expressing why other than to state they don’t like it. If you have specific feedback I’m all ears.
It’s kind of maddening the type (lack) of feedback you get on a project like this, especially when you don’t have a large budget to invest.

Typical Conversation:
Person A: The T-Rex looks bad.
Me: Ok, what don’t you like about it? Maybe I can have our artist take another look at it.
Person A: It doesn't look good.
Me: What don’t you like about it?
Person A: It doesn’t look right, you should fix it.
Me: Uh…OK, thanks...

...and yet you still haven't fixed it!

coopasonic wrote:...and yet you still haven't fixed it!

Ok, I fix.

Lordnine wrote:

coopasonic wrote:...and yet you still haven't fixed it!

Ok, I fix.

Fail. Dinosaurs all have red eyes..

Or, since this looks like a pirate dinosaur with a peg leg, put a patch on it.

Lordnine wrote:

Lordnine wrote:Thanks for the input. Some other people have commented that they don’t like the T-Rex but are really bad at expressing why other than to state they don’t like it. If you have specific feedback I’m all ears.
It’s kind of maddening the type (lack) of feedback you get on a project like this, especially when you don’t have a large budget to invest.

Typical Conversation:
Person A: The T-Rex looks bad.
Me: Ok, what don’t you like about it? Maybe I can have our artist take another look at it.
Person A: It doesn't look good.
Me: What don’t you like about it?
Person A: It doesn’t look right, you should fix it.
Me: Uh…OK, thanks...

Small, static, non-threatening. He should dominate the cover both from a size and an attitude perspective.

I know you want the gallery in the background to show it's a park, not just a dino in the wild, but it just doesn't feel as impressive as I think it should. Maybe a change of perspective? I can't think of the right one that gets you there, but it's a thought.

coopasonic wrote: Small, static, non-threatening. He should dominate the cover both from a size and an attitude perspective.

I know you want the gallery in the background to show it's a park, not just a dino in the wild, but it just doesn't feel as impressive as I think it should. Maybe a change of perspective? I can't think of the right one that gets you there, but it's a thought.

One thing I was thinking of is emulating the pose a bit from this iconic scene. (Which by the way, the CGI doesnt look nearly as impressive as I remember!)

I was thinking maybe if the head was turned towards the viewer. So instead of posing, the T-Rex looked more like it was about have a snack.

I also think the scanning part may be unnecessary clutter. At least with rain. Hard to tell if the weather/rain would be an issue without the scanner overlay.

And teeth. Lots of teeth.

Ok, digging at it, not to be critical but because you asked. Really, really digging and seeing what I would change if it were mine.

~Too busy. There are too many elements resulting in a confused story (and a good cover picture needs to tell a story at a glance.) Is this about a t-rex? Is it about people on a skybridge? Or is that a wall? No, there's a scan overlay. Why? What's that mean? There is no context for that, and so it becomes meaningless, which makes it confusing. I'm not sure what I'm watching.

~Proportions seem off. I'm no paleontologist, but the head seems a little too big, and the arms seem attached too high and too far back. The rear leg looks noticeably thicker than the foreground leg, which is the opposite of what I'd expect. A t-rex is something we're used to seeing a lot of, and bad proportions can bring on that 'uncanny valley' effect even in non-humans. The usual response to which is a feeling that it looks 'wrong', but being unable to define exactly what is wrong with it.

~The head lacks shape. It's fine for a card, but for a cover, it makes it look very soft and almost 'mushy' when the rest of the piece makes me expect more defined shapes.

~The lighting is confusing. It seems to be at night during a rainstorm, but the t-rex is very brightly lit from almost directly overhead. Was this a lightning bolt? Helicopter? I'm not sure, but absolutely nothing else in the scene seems to share this lighting.

If I had to narrow it down to one thing, I'd say that the problem looks like it is card art blown up to be box art with extra elements added rather than art planned as a cover. You've got very similar art used in some of your sample cards, and it looks fantastic there. I'd love to see something that emphasized the idea of a park more. Something idyllic, happy, and... hey, what's that dinosaur doing there? Whoah!

Again, I'm not trying to be mean, just figure out why it may not be working for people.

Just to be clear, I *was* trying to be mean. I'm upset about losing my Park Manager pledge and I need to take it out on someone!

Blackhawk wrote:I'd love to see something that emphasized the idea of a park more. Something idyllic, happy, and... hey, what's that dinosaur doing there? Whoah!

Now that is an interesting idea.

Something like those ads from the 50s and 60s... looking at the gate to the park... it's sunny and warm... a father and mother are turned to take the hand(s) of their kids to enter the park... but looking down the way, past the shops and people, you can see a t-rex crossing the crowded walkway... maybe with a person in it's mouth...

But all somewhat far away. So it's easy to miss at first glance. Instead, the initial impression is of warm, happy, family-oriented, fun.

Of course, that would likely be a tough picture to create.

Yeah, you couldn't make it too hard to find the dino. That's the part that will draw people in, and if they don't see it, they'll think you're selling Candyland 2017. But dinosaur park! Cute little dinos in that pen! Beautiful day. Daddy and little Suzy - she has a bronto balloon! Hey, why is that tyranosaurus out of his pen?

Or maybe focus on the escaped T-Rex. Men moving in, tranq rifles ready, doom! Doom! But around the corner you see Daddy and Suzy, walking down Dino Street, happy and oblivious to what's right around the corner.

I'm really looking forward to the relaunch. Maybe this time I'll be quick enough for a park founders spot...

Honestly everything that was said in the explanation for relaunching seems spot on, and I look forward to playing your game. I'm excited about the idea.

I agree about the box. It looks too busy and not enough about it looks like a dinosaur park. Makes me feel more like it is a game like dominant species or something. Don't get me wrong it's not like it was pushing me away, I liked the idea of the game a lot so the box is the box, no big deal.

The other advice I would add is to advertise on bgg. Now I'm saying that as someone who has no idea what that costs, but I've clicked on a lot of Kickstarter banners on bgg. I purposely leave my ads on for bgg to see interesting games I might otherwise miss. The other thing I think you did well that would be smart to add at the beginning is the social goals. Include incentive for people to like pictures and the game on bgg because those likes drive it up the hotness on bgg which gives a game a ton of traffic.

Well...crap. My copy of Massive Darkness should be shipping soon, but the majority of reviews I've seen so far give the game a resounding "meh". Dull and easy seem to be the major complaints. I'm wondering if I should bother opening it, or just put it on eBay right away.

TheMix wrote:I was thinking maybe if the head was turned towards the viewer. So instead of posing, the T-Rex looked more like it was about have a snack.

I also think the scanning part may be unnecessary clutter. At least with rain. Hard to tell if the weather/rain would be an issue without the scanner overlay.

And teeth. Lots of teeth.

Those are solid suggestions; a more ferocious-looking T-rex (e.g. see below) would definitely liven things up.

Blackhawk wrote:
If I had to narrow it down to one thing, I'd say that the problem looks like it is card art blown up to be box art with extra elements added rather than art planned as a cover.

You nailed that part. Card art is expensive ($200-$400 a card is the norm, I’ve shopped around a lot) but larger scale stuff is a whole different ball part (I’ve been quoted everywhere from $600-$1600). This kind of comes back around to; Kickstarter was intended for small projects to get off the ground but because the big publishers use the platform, you need to have production values to match if you want to be successful. The T-Rex card was actually never intended to be the final box art but it was the most thematic piece of art and thus became my impromptu box art for the KS.

Still some really good feedback here for commissioning art going forward.

Blackhawk wrote:I'd love to see something that emphasized the idea of a park more. Something idyllic, happy, and... hey, what's that dinosaur doing there? Whoah!

That one I’m going to say is not so appropriate to the theme. The setting of DinoGenics is actually supposed to be a bit cyberpunk oppressive. The fact that the competing corporations are greedy and corrupt is woven into pretty much every aspect of the game. Part of this is for mechanical reasons, part because I like it thematically, and also so that it distances itself from a certain other Dinosaur Park game which announced itself around the same month I was originally planning.

Chrisoc13 wrote:The other thing I think you did well that would be smart to add at the beginning is the social goals. Include incentive for people to like pictures and the game on bgg because those likes drive it up the hotness on bgg which gives a game a ton of traffic.

This is something I regret not doing sooner. We had such a strong first week that I didn’t think we were going to have problems. Then GenCon hit and our momentum slowed to a crawl. The social goals were a recommendation from a very successful KS veteran (I won’t name him but most of you have probably played at least one of his games.) It helped but it was too late at that point and I didn’t see us crossing the finish line unless things picked up in a big way.

Ultimately, everything I wrote in our closing post was true; the amount we learned in just those couple weeks could fill a text book. Running a Kickstarter is not well documented and I was actually shocked by how little control I had over the campaign once it started. The Kickstarter platform itself is incredibly limiting, which is why a whole new industry has sprung up in the form of after-fact pledge managers to support it.

All of that said, I am very optimistic about the whole thing starting anew in October.

Massive Darkness should be here Thursday. Going to have a lot of things to do this weekend

having an image to look at here help me think about it.



Illustration and art are intention so it's hard to criticize without knowing the intent but looking at it from a "pleasing my eye" perspective.

His tiny arms are washed out in his body and his tiny arms are what he is known for.
His torso feels shorter than my imagination puts it.
The head conjures a feel of claymation or early 3D software rendering. My preference would be to have more feelings of texture.

That said, I don't have anything against it.

So I’m curious since the three card image was posted. For those that don’t care for the T-Rex, how do you feel about the other dinos above?

I didn't get the impression that anyone (other than possibly LM) had an issue with the T-Rex on the card. The discussion was around how that didn't translate well to the box cover.

Personally, I don't have any issues with the card art.

Lordnine wrote:So I’m curious since the three card image was posted. For those that don’t care for the T-Rex, how do you feel about the other dinos above?

I just realized that is not a brontosaurus peaking out from behind the ankylosaurus, so that might be telling. I also don't like how you can't see it's eyes.

While I can see the raptor's eyes, I would have expected it to look more intelligent/fierce. I would also have expected to see more claws. It's kind of cut off, though, so that might be part of it.

Overall, the dinos are okay, just not great. I do like the rest of the card though. The layout seems clean, clear and bold.

TheMix wrote:I didn't get the impression that anyone (other than possibly LM) had an issue with the T-Rex on the card. The discussion was around how that didn't translate well to the box cover.

Personally, I don't have any issues with the card art.

This is my feeling as well. Card art needs to present information (this dinosaur exists) more than a story, and your card art is perfectly fine. A two inch square has far different requirements than a 14 inch cover.

TheMix wrote:I didn't get the impression that anyone (other than possibly LM) had an issue with the T-Rex on the card. The discussion was around how that didn't translate well to the box cover.

Personally, I don't have any issues with the card art.

It's the same T Rex, isn't it? I didn't see a quick and easy box cover image to grab, but T Rex looked the same so I grabbed that image.

Did a quick and dirty render for you.... If you want me to play some more with it, let me know.

Nice. Is that built from scratch or based on an existing model? I would like to stay with traditional (non-3D) artwork for this project but I definitely appreciate the effort!

Existing model.
I'll see if I have some cartoon shades I can apply to make it look flatter.
A benefit of using 3d models is that if you need to rearrange or change pose it doesn't require a complete redo.
Or, even just use 3d to plan the final layout then having your artist draw from that.

Punisher wrote: I'll see if I have some cartoon shades I can apply to make it look flatter.

I am curious but don't go to a bunch of trouble for me here. I did some 3D modeling back in college but it's been so long my skills have atrophied. I had an embarrassing amount of difficulty just trying to make my 3D meeple renders.

hepcat wrote:Well...crap. My copy of Massive Darkness should be shipping soon, but the majority of reviews I've seen so far give the game a resounding "meh". Dull and easy seem to be the major complaints. I'm wondering if I should bother opening it, or just put it on eBay right away.

I think mine is arriving soon as well. Just got a label notice on Fedex but it doesn't say who its from.

Impressions seem very mixed but it actually sounds like they are delivering on what they promised, dungeon based Zombicide with a bunch of cool minis. Difficulty issues aside, a lot of the negative impressions seem to be from people who were expecting more than that for some reason. I've actually never played Zombicide so I'm going to be going in blind either way.

No worries. I only charge $1,000.00 per hour....
I'll mess around and post when I can.

hepcat wrote:Well...crap. My copy of Massive Darkness should be shipping soon, but the majority of reviews I've seen so far give the game a resounding "meh". Dull and easy seem to be the major complaints. I'm wondering if I should bother opening it, or just put it on eBay right away.

I haven't played Zombicide, but I enjoyed what I played of Massive Darkness at GenCon. By all counts it's basically just a Zombicide Evolved as far as mechanics go.

hepcat wrote:Well...crap. My copy of Massive Darkness should be shipping soon, but the majority of reviews I've seen so far give the game a resounding "meh". Dull and easy seem to be the major complaints. I'm wondering if I should bother opening it, or just put it on eBay right away.

Maybe post here in case someone wants to pick it up?

Also, my family and I love Zombicide and I recently backed their Green Horde KS. We do change their attack rules as a house rule because ...it's stupid..... Basically, if you attack an area with Zombies and survivors, you must apply damage to the survivors first before using any excess on the zombies. If it was a chance to hit survivors, it would be different, but they are basically saying that you are practically aiming at the survivors first.... so we ignore that rule...
I think Black Plague does this differently, but I haven't invested in that yet..

Zombicide does that rule to avoid cheese and put ranged players at risk. It's thematically dumb, but necessary.

I've learned my lesson about taking any chance shooting into melee. Messed up hentzau's hero with a "can't miss, don't tell me the odds" shot a long time ago in Heroscape.

Plus, skipping that rule makes some of the powers/items irrelevant then. Who needs to bother with a scope? What's the point in having the skill that allows you to drag someone out of a room?

I agree that it's silly when translated to the "real world". But, yeah, it is necessary for the game.

Well, you could use the pull from room power to pull someone in danger of getting swamped and the scope adds long range too, no?
I would be OK if there was a RISK of shooting the survivors, but nobody at my games liked the always hit the survivor first part. Even if the risk was high, but still had a chance to miss the survivors, I'd feel better about it...

I very well could be wrong, but I believe the only thing the scope does is allow you to select the target. Essentially you get to use the melee rules.

The main point being that the rule definitely increases the strategic part of the game (which otherwise is pretty minimal). Playing without it is certainly your right, but you are likely making the game easier. Which, depending on who you are playing with (i.e. younger children) may be very appropriate.

Personally, I have a "mulligan" house rule regarding the abomination bastards. I definitely don't allow them in the first 3 turns, and possibly in the first 5.

We did one mission where we drew the abomination 3 times in two turns (we put it back in and shuffled each time). I think they were turns 2 and 3. The party was split and didn't even start anywhere where they could search. So there was zero chance of having any means to handle an abomination.

For the most part we have lived with pulling the abomination whenever it happens, yeah it sucks if it happens early, but we are ok with that. We will usually try to finish the goals with most of the group and have one person search over and over in a building that has been cleared.

My approach is to get to somewhere I can search as quickly as possible, then have everyone hole up and search until I get a molotov. Then move out.

If I draw the abomination and have one part of the molotov, then I will try to keep going. I have managed to get the other part in time. But if he spawns too close, then there isn't much you can do.

I look at the mulligan as "okay, we lost this one, let's pretend we restarted and did the exact same things, and drew the exact same cards, and now we are back to this point...". Sure, we could restart, but usually I have limited gaming time. Mentally I just chalk up one in the loss column and continue on.

Cultist Simulator: Behold Our End. By the founder of the studio that made Fallen London and Sunless Sea.

I like his approach to stretch goals: "extremely minimal, extremely low-cost stretch goals that I can fulfil while the campaign is running, basically for fun, and to incite the occasional extra pledge."

Just a heads up, the Conan campaign book is availible again as part of their new Book of Set KS. This is a short campaign, only 5 days, so if you want in on it you need to hurry.

I've mentioned this before but in my opinion, the campaign book turns a good game into a great one, assuming you have the five people needed to play.