I would just like to add some words of what I hope is constructive feedback.

In short the value of the game (and the bit that got everyone excited) is the chance to single play an immersive Ars Magica story. That was all great news and surely had enough to grasp a lot of attention.

However, the cost of the investment vs the actual video game experience was likely to be too dissuading. All of my troupe reacted the same way when they discovered this was a 2D storyboard game, "ah thats such a shame".

The video game market has just simply moved too far beyond that. A 2D story board game offers very little to the market. It offers beautiful pictures and surely a well crafted story. But then tabletop RP provides the latter, can be more dynamic and provides a greater character symbiosis.

In todays digital age I'm afraid gamers are used to video games providing a different source of immersion and that is what you are likely to have to provide.

That is not to say you wont be able to sell a 2D game. But given its limits I just cannot see people willing to pay the sums asked for. I would recommend either going for a wider audience with a low cost 2D storyboard game or going all out and making this a mainstream 3D platform. You'll get investment from the many Ars Magica fans and income from the game being sold to a wider base.

I feel for the developers not getting the backing they needed. Good luck to you if you try again.

I'll chime in that Akril's comments articulate very well what I was feeling.

I couldn't bring myself to commit to the kickstarter for the game, because it was just lacking generally. Further, there's the replayability issue, which I suspect was going to be nil to none (I left the range purposely broad :laughing:). I judge most of the games I buy based on how much replay I can get out of them. Nearly 20 years later, I still play Master of Magic, nearly 15 years later I still play Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Granted, it's not often, but I can pick up those games relatively quickly and spend a few hours on them over the course of the week and get some amount of value. I can't do that with a heavily focused story game like this appeared to be. It's a one and done shot. To me it reminded me of the Krondor games put out by Sierra in the 90s. The first one was ok, but I never really wanted to go back to replay it until now, as I'm writing this very post...

I think it's too late to stir the debate now and I'm not sure how much it would have helped during that final push, but I actually thought I'd get at least a couple of runs through. The story may generally have been the same, but the options are what gives a game replay value.

With the exception of November (spent on other things) I've been hooked on Skyrim for the PS3. I managed to get up to a certain level before my old PS3 kicked the bucket. I've diligently worked my way back on the new machine and I'm happy to do so because despite the storyline remaining the same (I've not done much of the actual story this time around) and all the same old quests, characters, and encounters being in the same old places, I'm able to play through the game differently.

Then again, even with something like the Uncharted series, I find I enjoy them every time I pick them up. They are as railroaded as you can get in terms of the story and your route through any given level, but they present an enjoyable play experience.

I think what was proposed, given that we're not talking about a 3D console game, offered elements of both those approaches for me and I'm very sorry that I won't get to dive into the Years of Conquest any time soon.

I think this project would have been produced with (for example) Eastern European developers for ~92000$. Reason is simple they are cheaper.

they'd still need the ideas