Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Weiser
Teg,
If you don't mind my asking, but why? If it's not something you want to discuss privately, PM me please. I promise not to share unless you clear me to do so.
|
Naah, there's nothing I can say in PM that I can't say here.
I think the Twilight: 2000 fan community's response to Twilight: 2013 has done a thorough and vigorous job of pointing out its many and varied flaws. With those in mind, and knowing that the game wasn't financially successful on its first go-round, I can't see it garnering any better reception or sales figures after a resurrection. While I appreciate the fact that a handful of fans still have enthusiasm and warm feelings toward it, well... I'll just
repeat myself here:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tegyrius
It is an unfortunate geek tendency for individual fans or small local (or online) groups to project their own personal enthusiasm for a property onto the overall global population of potential customers, then make sweeping (and erroneous) generalizations about the commercial viability of their personal visions for said property. In some cases, this failed understanding goes so far as to drive catastrophically bad business decisions.
|
I have enough doubts about the ability of a resurrected Twilight: 2000 to turn a profit for a publisher, let alone do anything truly revolutionary in the "alternate Cold War post-apocalyptic military survival gaming" genre. I simply can't see Twilight: 2013 being any kind of success, and it'd tear me up to watch it fail again.
Having said all that, I think Twilight: 2013 did some things right, though not right
enough. I still believe the removal of exclusive focus on military PCs and the military side of the global events is necessary for success in the survival RPG genre, especially if you want to position a rules system as a toolkit for gaming in different post-apocalyptic settings. It lends itself to a more inclusive game for players who don't (for whatever reason) want to engage in mil-spec gaming. I think there's enough Cold War grognardism in the fan base that a future timeline, rather than yet another rehashing of Fulda Gap fantasies, is a necessary dodge to keep from getting nitpicked to death over differing interpretations of historical minutiae (or over whatever historical liberties are necessary to achieve the desired setting). And I think some of Reflex's core mechanical concepts (particularly the concept of the team as an entity that's mechanically separate from the individual PCs) are worth revisiting in a more professionally-designed game engine.
- C.