How does that make me a hypocrite? DF have never made a good adventure game (or a good game full stop), LucasArts did.

I can appreciate the fact that Schafer was once a good designer (or at least perhaps some people at LucasArts were good designers and Schafer took credit for their work) at the same time as recognizing that he obviously lost his thing since then. LucasArts made clever and tricky adventure games, DF makes medicore platformers, action games and hipster shovelware. Whether that's Schafer or the people he recruited I won't say.

Really?

Obsidian seemed to have a lot of qualities that showed me that they could make a game unlike Double Fine's Tim.

By this, I mean not just WHAT they said but HOW they said it. How they carried themselves, etc.

Tim came off as a overtly creative person that is not tied down to reality, pragmatism, etc. One of the negative traits of overtly creative people is that they lack a business mindset, etc

I did not get that gut feeling with Project Eternity and Obsidian.

First let me say that I already corrected myself in a previous post, saying that my opinion was based on lack of information.

That said, it's also based on the initial project presentation and personal bias, as well as what's been posted. What Project Eternity screamed at me initially is "generic RPG". It was kind of "we're going to give you everything you've ever wanted in an RPG which doesn't have anything particularly special about it." Which I guess is what many people actually want. Couple that with Obsidian's general tendency (I'll qualify: the way I and some others see it) to release decent but flawed games, and that led to my lack of belief in the project turning out to be really good.

Also Double Fine, because of the documentary and tons of initial posts by devs on the forum, regarding art style, programming, writing, etc., involved me a lot more and gave me an impression of doing good work to bring about a good game. Obsidian gave me, and is still giving me, an impression of still working on design, and while that's fine (it was the same with DF), because there are fewer details about development the updates made me feel like the project isn't getting far beyond initial design and prototyping.

Reading back the updates, I realised they did say they're in a stage of implementing the full game, but there's just not that much info so I'm still not feeling the same amount of trust I feel for Wasteland 2 or DF. Granted PE was funded 6 months later, so it's natural that it's at an earlier stage, but inXile did show an extensive early gameplay video 5 months ago. Hopefully Obsidian will have something like that in the not too far future.

You pretend that you are concerned about DF and say that you want Broken Age to succeed, while actually nothing would make you happier to see it fail. I'm not sure whether it makes you a hypocrite, but it's slimy and pathetic. If you hate DF, then grow a spine and say it.

I'm not loyal to any business which is designed solely to make money, I like to play good games.

You know there probably is a reason why every Obsidian's high-profile game ends up being unfinished.

There probably is, but in this case they don't have a publisher forcing them to publish early, so there's a chance that the game will be in a better state in the end, even if they do end up having to get more money they way DF does. I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt in this respect.

Still at this point of the projects I backed (enough to get the game) PE is one of the projects I'm looking forward to the least. Then again, I wasn't that enthusiastic about Broken Age until I saw the latest in-game clips. My general tendency when it comes to Kickstarter is to think up front: "this has potential to be a good game, but there's a decent chance it will disappoint". I never go "OMG, this is going to be amazing!" Which is one reason I tend to pledge on the low side. (Frankly it's the same with games I buy.)

Now go ahead and take a guess why publishers force them to release early :-P Hint: It's not because publisher is evil and hates them.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It's easy to assume that the reason was that development too long, and that was exactly what I addressed in my previous post. Feels like a circular argument on your side. If that's not the case please clarify.

Well I'm trying to hint at the fact that prolonged development means more expensive development, as you still have to pay your employees, and that if one Obsidian's game came out too early and unfinished, it would be fine, but since pretty much all of them did, publisher was probably not the cause here - the team's management skills were. That was my reasoning for not backing them.

So... Yeah, I fully expect them to come back, asking for more.

That's what I thought you meant, which is why I wasn't sure why you were making this comment considering that I already said they might have to go the DF way. Yes, it's possible, perhaps even likely, that they'll have to get money elsewhere, either from cash reserves, investors, Early Access, etc.

I find it strange that I feel you're arguing with me when what I keep saying about Project Eternity is that it's the one I have the least trust in. Are you trying to convince me not to give Obsidian the benefit of the doubt? I don't think you'll be able to convince me of that. I backed them (at the minimum needed to get the game) because I have some trust in their abilities to create a good game, even though I saw a lot of potential problems. I have more trust now in the game than I initially had (even if still lower than many other games), and I don't think that money and scope problems are insurmountable (we'll see how the DF attempt with Early Access fares).

I'm not actually arguing with you you know, originally I was trying to add to your post. (I never claimed to have particulary good communication skills :D )

Ah, okay. Sorry about arguing back then. It's sometimes hard to judge intentions from the posts.

In case it wasn't posted, here is very comprehensive interview with Tim Schafer at Kotaku
http://kotaku.com/tim-schafers-great-video-game-experiment-1228121826
where the events of the last months are again discussed in detail:

Some points I took home:

- they want to avoid the impression of having money problems, which is completely understandable, but only half convincing because of the inconsistency of the statements (we essentially have enough money vs. we need more money to finish it faster - then it's not really enough in my eyes) - I am really curious about the success rate of the early access thing

- during the project they moved more and more towards full transparency

- they downplay the relevance of the initial $400K budget, basically no real game would have been possible with it - I have the impression that they overemphasize the initial importance of the documentary slightly to make the present moves look better or it's just me being more interested in the game than in the documentary (which I'll watch at some later point)

- having communication to backers only also seems to have its disadvantages, since you must explain things inevitably also to the public, with 80000 backers information will always leak but the reasons should also leak otherwise people get confused

- the crucial decision to prolong the game development was that Tim Schafer felt the backers would rather have a larger game later than a shorter game sooner which is also what he prefers. " ...They'd be getting the game they paid for, in the timeframe that they expected, but they would've been disappointed with it. Maybe that's me projecting my own disappointment onto them, but I really think I know what would make a dense enough adventure game to feel satisfying. I think they'll be happy with this version. ..." - Without directly asking the backers it's unsure if this really is the case, maybe he is projecting his own disappointment. I'm one who balances time and content a bit different, being also satisfied with a bit smaller game if it comes faster. Bigger isn't better always.

So all in all: I trust him on the content vision. I would have preferred a somewhat more time and budget sensitive development right from the start, but since this chance is already over I'll wait for the bigger game. However I really don't give much on the potential return of the Steam early access and I fear that the game will be delayed even further. Somehow very, very often these estimates are too optimistic. So I just hope that there won't be any more substantial delay and that there really won't be financial problems. I feel reconciled with the project creators and looking forward to the game.

Nah, it was actually 2PP that started the whole thing with the idea of making a documentary about DF:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/how-a-film-crew-helped-begin-double-fines-kickstarter-revolution-the-story-