TPP's and H&V's existence

[Mister Bison]

Cross-posting everywhere back to here because having 5 threads for this single topic is insanity.

Now unless any "Plan Z" leader says the contrary, the main difference between "The Phoenix Project" and "Heroes & Villain" is actually a difference in the freedom taken toward their common goal. It can or cannot be the sole reason, but for the players, that's all that matter.

As stated numerous times now, both will create a spiritual successor to the game we loved (I suggest we stop refering to it by its name for legal reason, unless all "Plan Z"s will be doomed). It's just that "H&V" will try to provide the same gameplay and systems, just not the same IP, while "TPP" will try to provide the same feel, inventing new gameplay and systems on the way.

Both endeavours make perfect sense, it's just a matter of opinion. As you can see, the difference is in "gameplay and systems", all the rest is (or could be) the same: storylines, 3D models, level design... while the rules, etc. will differ between the games.

I think both are a great idea. In doing something new, you risk doing worse. But you also risk doing better. In doing the same thing you're the successor to, you risk the wrath of NCSoft. But any successor will. Every player has a different idea of what to think of the previous gameplay: "it was perfect !" or "it was horrible !" or "oh, the shiny costumes !". Every and any idea is going to appeal to players, simply because the game is not here anymore.

It's too soon to give names. The choice behind "H&V" gives itself no freedom, what it'll be is decided, what there'll be inside is still up in the air, but as in any game. Golden Girl did something courageous, but the Project Phoenix Committee did too. Both stood up to their convictions, their visions, which could potentially affect the other, so the "split" happened. I put quoting marks because it's just a split name, ressources can be shared, but if a project fails, so should not the other. As both have different "legal" chances.

I can't force anybody to anything, but I would encourage, to those who do because those in charge are maybe hand-bound, to donate and give their work and time to both and every other projects to come. There is no need to "give" to only one of them, and anyway, you can an should (for your IP's sake) only "share" with them. We are all in the same boat, and every single person that reads this is entitled to his opinion and say in the upcoming game, or games.

Edit one: Golden Girl issued a press release, confirming the differences in gameplay from CoH will be details (I assume long-standing bugs and inconsistencies). The same thing is expected from TPP in a short manner.

Edit two: H&V will focus on the Tech aspects first. They have a small tentative business plan in the mean time. So no lore team is up while the tech is not sorted out, Golden Girl assumes the sole Lore position.

[emu265]

I am 100% supportive of cooperation between the two projects.  I am paranoid about a fracturing of the community, and anything to prevent that from happening gets a pass in my book.  However.  Sharing work simply for the sake of sharing can get really dangerous, really fast.  Eventually, someone is going to get shafted.  Please, please, please be careful and be sure to trust one another.  Everyone involved in either project needs to work to make sure there are no hard feelings between the two.

[Captain Electric]

I am 100% supportive of cooperation between the two projects. I am paranoid about a fracturing of the community, and anything to prevent that from happening gets a pass in my book.

Ideally, yes; but please take a moment to consider why some of us are just as paranoid about being able to see any progress via a completely incompatible team. There is a reason why studios don't just hire everyone who comes in wanting to write, draw, or code for them.

Mercedes Lackey made an excellent and short point in this regard. It's worth reading. It may make you less paranoid about seeing the project split in two, and more concerned about how things would go if everyone stayed on the same team:
 http://www.cohtitan.com/forum/index.php/topic,6536.msg83501.html#msg83501

Also bear in mind, there were teams within Paragon Studios who barely ever spoke to each other. Thinking of this as a fracture of the entire community is just not accurate. I've only seen one poster say "I'm out of here" throughout all of this, and they weren't even a member of either project. It was a forum poster. Who later retracted their statement and is still posting around. 

[Battle Ant]

I have no problem with a little healthy competition. I just think people are butthurt because their version of "lore" isn't being used. I've seen evidence of this in both camps since the idea to make a game was brought up. There is too much emphasis on trying to be " the spiritual successor to CoH".

Lore is fluff..PERIOD. It doesn't matter if Aliens came to Earth and impregnated penguins or a Jell-o factory explodes and gave everyone superpowers. Look at Stan Lee. He did not invent the Marvel Universe and put heroes in it, he started with a few heroes and the universe formed from it.

My point is this: K.I.S.S - Keep it simple stupid. If you want to make a hero game, then start with the basics: A hero fights a villain. As that hero gains experience, the villains get tougher. Make the game first and then let the lore form from that. I realize that role playing is important to some people, but it is not important to everyone. The best lore comes from the player's imagination and not from some predetermined source.

[emu265]

Ideally, yes; but please take a moment to consider why some of us are just as paranoid about being able to see any progress via a completely incompatible team. There is a reason why studios don't just hire everyone who comes in wanting to write, draw, or code for them.

Mercedes Lackey made an excellent and short point in this regard. It's worth reading. It may make you less paranoid about seeing the project split in two, and more concerned about how things would go if everyone stayed on the same team:
 http://www.cohtitan.com/forum/index.php/topic,6536.msg83501.html#msg83501

Also bear in mind, there were teams within Paragon Studios who barely ever spoke to each other. Thinking of this as a fracture of the entire community is just not accurate. I've only seen one poster say "I'm out of here" throughout all of this, and they weren't even a member of either project. It was a forum poster. Who later retracted their statement and is still posting around. 

I suppose I didn't express my feelings accurately enough.  I understand the necessity of the divided effort, especially because, according to Tony, there were some hard feelings at one point.  I am only trying to caution against hard feelings between two teams, because that is where a crack becomes a fissure.  I am not proposing the teams get back together.  I would just like them to get along, which may prove challenging if there is shared work. 

[Rotten Luck]

At some point I think we should solidate into one plan.  Here's why.

1.) Resources.. true there are a lot of talent offering to work on a new city, but those talents and limited time.  No one getting paid to work code for 8+ hours to get this done.  On top of that others have contacts and aid that can only be put to one plan.

2.) Kickstarter / Marketing.  When the time comes for us to take the plan more public it be confusing to everyone if their are two games.  A Single game can be marketed with a much better approach then trying to fund two games (With a begging for shoe string budget).

I propose this.  Each Team continues on their projects and at the end of a given time give us all a project Proposal.  We then Vote on the Plans choosing witch would be pushed forward.  We are the investors of Plan Z this is both true emotionally, Ideal wise, and funding.  We will be the crowd that will be donating in the Kickstarter after all.  Or so I hope if not why are you here?

So if my idea goes forward at what point do we say "Okay show us your Proposals"

[kwsapphire]

Thanks for clarifying the difference between the two projects, Mister Bison! That makes a lot of sense and, if the real reason, is a good indicator to invest in both games. I loved COH and would be happy to play on the same mechanics again, but I also realize something different could be even more awesome. And as others have mentioned, it's entirely possible that one project realizes it's not going to work and rolls into the other, or both may flourish. Hopefully at least one makes it though, and diversifying our investments is a good start.

[Rotten Luck]

I agree thanks Mister Bison for clearing things up.  From the outside it was confusing as why the split at best and at worst an over inflated ego explosion.

[downix]

Lore is fluff..PERIOD. It doesn't matter if Aliens came to Earth and impregnated penguins or a Jell-o factory explodes and gave everyone superpowers. Look at Stan Lee. He did not invent the Marvel Universe and put heroes in it, he started with a few heroes and the universe formed from it.

Lore is not fluff, and we've had several game designers already compliment us for taking it seriously. Lore is the framework from which the stories are developed. Without an internally consistent lore system, you risk conflicting development, with two storylines giving completely different outcomes and a player running both of them.

Have you ever read the CoH Lore bible?

Lore is not "where do heroes come from," it is "how does this world work?"  You bring up Stan Lee, but seem to have forgetten that when he began working at Timely Comics in 1939, it's owner, Martin Goodman, *had* a Lore Bible. It was based on Martin's older publications, released under Red Circle Publishing, of pulp detective novels. It detailed out the historical differences between Timely's world and ours.

Timely's had many name changes, and today is a division of the Disney company, named Marvel after it's first title, Marvel Comics. I think Martin did it right, considering how Marvel's still going strong when other publishers of the same era have come and gone. Reading some of the early Marvel titles, you can see distinct references to Red Circle titles in there, including Namor the Sub-Mariner (which was originally a pulp fiction title before making the leap to comics).

[therain93]

Lore is not fluff, and we've had several game designers already compliment us for taking it seriously. Lore is the framework from which the stories are developed. Without an internally consistent lore system, you risk conflicting development, with two storylines giving completely different outcomes and a player running both of them.

Have you ever read the CoH Lore bible?

Lore is not "where do heroes come from," it is "how does this world work?"  You bring up Stan Lee, but seem to have forgetten that when he began working at Timely Comics in 1939, it's owner, Martin Goodman, *had* a Lore Bible. It was based on Martin's older publications, released under Red Circle Publishing, of pulp detective novels. It detailed out the historical differences between Timely's world and ours.

Timely's had many name changes, and today is a division of the Disney company, named Marvel after it's first title, Marvel Comics. I think Martin did it right, considering how Marvel's still going strong when other publishers of the same era have come and gone. Reading some of the early Marvel titles, you can see distinct references to Red Circle titles in there, including Namor the Sub-Mariner (which was originally a pulp fiction title before making the leap to comics).

Downix, some of us are not dismissing the importance of lore, which it feels like you're assuming.   Yes, structure is required -- I don't think anyone will debate that.  When we say lore is fluff or irrelevant, it means that we really don't care if the main hero was born human or has alien penguin dna for super sliding ability. If somone wants to leave and write their own new game because they whole-heartedly feel that the only important thing is to write about alien penguin impregnation, so be it, but that doesn't matter to some of us.  It's simply not a deciding factor.

[therain93]

Cross-posting everywhere back to here because having 5 threads for this single topic is insanity.

Now unless any "Plan Z" leader says the contrary, the main difference between "The Phoenix Project" and "Heroes & Villain" is actually a difference in the freedom taken toward their common goal. It can or cannot be the sole reason, but for the players, that's all that matter.

As stated numerous times now, both will create a spiritual successor to the game we loved (I suggest we stop refering to it by its name for legal reason, unless all "Plan Z"s will be doomed). It's just that "H&V" will try to provide the same gameplay and systems, just not the same IP, while "TPP" will try to provide the same feel, inventing new gameplay and systems on the way.

Both endeavours make perfect sense, it's just a matter of opinion. As you can see, the difference is in "gameplay and systems", all the rest is (or could be) the same: storylines, 3D models, level design... while the rules, etc. will differ between the games.

I think both are a great idea. In doing something new, you risk doing worse. But you also risk doing better. In doing the same thing you're the successor to, you risk the wrath of NCSoft. But any successor will. Every player has a different idea of what to think of the previous gameplay: "it was perfect !" or "it was horrible !" or "oh, the shiny costumes !". Every and any idea is going to appeal to players, simply because the game is not here anymore.

It's too soon to give names. The choice behind "H&V" gives itself no freedom, what it'll be is decided, what there'll be inside is still up in the air, but as in any game. Golden Girl did something courageous, but the Project Phoenix Committee did too. Both stood up to their convictions, their visions, which could potentially affect the other, so the "split" happened. I put quoting marks because it's just a split name, ressources can be shared, but if a project fails, so should not the other. As both have different "legal" chances.

I can't force anybody to anything, but I would encourage, to those who do because those in charge are maybe hand-bound, to donate and give their work and time to both and every other projects to come. There is no need to "give" to only one of them, and anyway, you can an should (for your IP's sake) only "share" with them. We are all in the same boat, and every single person that reads this is entitled to his opinion and say in the upcoming game, or games.

Thank you for summarizing this -- I don't see why either set of team leads couldn't do it, but thank you.

[downix]

Downix, some of us are not dismissing the importance of lore, which it feels like you're assuming.   Yes, structure is required -- I don't think anyone will debate that.  When we say lore is fluff or irrelevant, it means that we really don't care if the main hero was born human or has alien penguin dna for super sliding ability. If somone wants to leave and write their own new game because they whole-heartedly feel that the only important thing is to write about alien penguin impregnation, so be it, but that doesn't matter to some of us.  It's simply not a deciding factor.

That's not how it comes across, however. And people have criticized TPP for taking the job of making a game seriously enough to actually develop a Lore bible.

Now, our lore is a bit heavy, and that is because we're working to keep writers busy until the mission and story framework is mapped out. That's now been just about nailed down, so the lore will be finished up and the actual game mission development begins.

[corvus1970]

Lore is fluff..PERIOD. It doesn't matter if Aliens came to Earth and impregnated penguins or a Jell-o factory explodes and gave everyone superpowers.

Penguin-Shaped Aliens came to earth and impregnated Jello-O, which exploded when eaten, bestowing super-powers upon the unexpecting dessert-eater.

There! Now everybody is happy!

[Codewalker]

That's not how it comes across, however. And people have criticized TPP for taking the job of making a game seriously enough to actually develop a Lore bible.

I don't agree with everything that TPP does, but if anyone is criticizing it for taking the development process seriously, that's just silly.

Yes, several of the folks are treating it like running a game studio -- that's how you get things done. I'd much rather people make fun for taking itself too seriously, than for it to just be an amateur joke like so many are. Things like a lore bible and review processes are necessary, otherwise you end up with a game full of Mary Sues and people's pet in-joke groups.

[chaparralshrub]

Thank you for summarizing this -- I don't see why either set of team leads couldn't do it, but thank you.

There are some other differences, most of the ones that I can think of having to do with the lore, but I'd say that you're more-or-less right from a lore standpoint as well. PP is making sure that it can stand on its own, avoiding wrath from NCS and providing players and developers with as much freedom as possible. H&V from what I can tell is staying much closer to CoH, so close that the PP staff are concerned about its legal status, which is a large part of the reason behind the split (although not the only reason).

I just wish I can say what, but I'm advised not to, pending PP's imminent legal release. Again, as I've said elsewhere, I can't say when that will be, because we are, at the moment, still volunteers, and RL is prone to getting in the way of a volunteer team.

[Battle Ant]

Lore is not fluff, and we've had several game designers already compliment us for taking it seriously. Lore is the framework from which the stories are developed. Without an internally consistent lore system, you risk conflicting development, with two storylines giving completely different outcomes and a player running both of them.

Have you ever read the CoH Lore bible?

Lore is not "where do heroes come from," it is "how does this world work?"  You bring up Stan Lee, but seem to have forgetten that when he began working at Timely Comics in 1939, it's owner, Martin Goodman, *had* a Lore Bible. It was based on Martin's older publications, released under Red Circle Publishing, of pulp detective novels. It detailed out the historical differences between Timely's world and ours.

Timely's had many name changes, and today is a division of the Disney company, named Marvel after it's first title, Marvel Comics. I think Martin did it right, considering how Marvel's still going strong when other publishers of the same era have come and gone. Reading some of the early Marvel titles, you can see distinct references to Red Circle titles in there, including Namor the Sub-Mariner (which was originally a pulp fiction title before making the leap to comics).

What does Stan Lee working for some other guy with a lore bible have to do with the fact that Stan made his heroes first and the world evolved from that? This is supposed to be a game. Your lore will evolve with its development. Yes you can have a general idea what you want your story to be, but you may find that during development, some of your story cannot be told due to limitations in your development software, artwork, etc.

You also have time constraints. Are you willing to put 3 to 5 years into telling some elaborate story? I seriously doubt players want to wait that long. Some may, most may not. Look at a real gaming studio. a good 3D game can take that 3 to 5 years to make and that is with using a previous game with lore and a software template (Skyrim comes to mind). This project is starting from scratch with volunteers. I'm not saying that it won't succeed. I'm saying you have a long road ahead of you and should prioritize the more important things first. You first need a working game with a combat system and some guys to beat up. Once that is working properly, then start on your story.

Like building a car, you don't start with the car as a whole, you start with parts and put them together. You start with the parts that make the car operate, once completed, then you put on the fenders and such which gives the car its style.

[therain93]

That's not how it comes across, however. And people have criticized TPP for taking the job of making a game seriously enough to actually develop a Lore bible.

Now, our lore is a bit heavy, and that is because we're working to keep writers busy until the mission and story framework is mapped out. That's now been just about nailed down, so the lore will be finished up and the actual game mission development begins.

I'm sorry if it comes across that way, but I think you and I have an understanding now where we're each coming from in terms of lore.  I hope ( ' : 

It's interesting that there was criticism about the process (of TPP using the lore bible), which I was not aware of.  I'll agree that I think it is silly to criticize having it and enforcing it. Creative types generally chafe under structure though, and it's unfortunate if that really is a wedge; ideally managers would help smooth that over.

As far as being lore heavy -- it doesn't mean it all has to be published, so long as it is there to provide structure for eveything. 

[downix]

What does Stan Lee working for some other guy with a lore bible have to do with the fact that Stan made his heroes first and the world evolved from that? This is supposed to be a game. Your lore will evolve with its development. Yes you can have a general idea what you want your story to be, but you may find that during development, some of your story cannot be told due to limitations in your development software, artwork, etc.

You also have time constraints. Are you willing to put 3 to 5 years into telling some elaborate story? I seriously doubt players want to wait that long. Some may, most may not. Look at a real gaming studio. a good 3D game can take that 3 to 5 years to make and that is with using a previous game with lore and a software template (Skyrim comes to mind). This project is starting from scratch with volunteers. I'm not saying that it won't succeed. I'm saying you have a long road ahead of you and should prioritize the more important things first. You first need a working game with a combat system and some guys to beat up. Once that is working properly, then start on your story.

Like building a car, you don't start with the car as a whole, you start with parts and put them together. You start with the parts that make the car operate, once completed, then you put on the fenders and such which gives the car its style.

That would be a case, if Lore and game engine development used the same talent pool.  As they don't, they can be done in parallel, as we are.

[Mister Bison]

That would be a case, if Lore and game engine development used the same talent pool.  As they don't, they can be done in parallel, as we are.

Lore is separate from (but complimentary to) game design, and development is the job to make the design a reality. So while they can be done in parallel, they still have to be made aware of the other, so that we don't end up having a monkey-trout hybrid while trying to mate them in the end.

In other, more related news, Heroes & Villains (erm, Golden Girl in fact) had a press release coverage here which might be interesting read, I'm putting it in the OP.

I thank all those who thought I had a good idea, but it wasn't all mine (well, the syndication of all threads was, but not the "news")

[TargetOne]

Personally, I feel lore is very important to the overall feel of a game. Without a rich, varied, and (hopefully) internally consistent lore, the game would just not be as much fun. I'm the sort of player who actually likes to read mission descriptions and in-mission text (NPC dialogue, clues, etc.), at least when I'm not under the pressure of playing in a group. That way, I at least have an idea of what the motivations are for all concerned parties, friend and foe alike.

TargetOne