When SotM came out, that was GtG's only game. Then GSF came up for Kickstarter. It had the same type of art and light-hearted feel, and made by the same designer, and many people assumed it would be the same type of game. It was not. Then came Tactics, which was based on a new system, Spirit Island which was designed by someone else, and not Story Wars which is based on another game.
GtG initially gave off this impressions of a designer/publisher. However, it is becomimg clearer and clearer that the desinger part is become less and less. This makes a big difference. When you hear of a certain desginer, for example, Uwe Rosenberg, Reiner Knizia, Alan Moon, Martinc Wallace, etc., you can usually expect the game to play a particular way. If you like one of their games, there is a decent chance that you will like another. GtG used to be in the category, as a designer, now they aren't.
Publishers are very different. You might know what type of components a game will have (quality wise), but you really don't know how the game will play. Even if you like a previous title, you might not like a new game that is being released.
I think with a project like this, things are changing. That fan base and momentum of being a designer is gone. People will no longer say, "A new GtG game, great I am in," but rather are going to view them as a publisher that is making a new game that might be completely different. Where once you might have said "I love GtG and will get the next game, because I like what they do," this statement changes to "I love SotM, but that has nothing to do with other games."
There is absoultely nothing wrong with GtG becoming a publisher instead of a designer. WE all had the wrong impression, while GtG knew this for a long time (rule #15 ftw). Where I think GtG failed with the Kickstarter is that it took too long to address this idea. It should have been posted the first day that Story War will now contain significant info. Coupling with the long awaited comic books did not help to give the right impression.
There is nothing wrong with a publisher reaching out to their former customers to try a new game. However, the impression (not necessarily the reality) is that this was targeted to their SotM fans as more SotM (nothing on the Story War's BGG page, but lots on here and SotM page).
The fans are clearly beginning to make this disctinciton between designer/publisher, and I think GtG can do a bit more on their side to make this distinction too. Just check out all the posts before it was revealed to see what people were thinking about.
Pydro, I feel that is fan created impression that GtG would just be a design studio for a certain type of game. I have no exposure to any of them beyond these forums, but it's always seemed clear to me in interviews that they are wanting to be a strong board game publisher. Also, with the exception of Wallace, none of the names you mentioned have a game company - they design games for companies to publishers, so the comparison does not make sense to me. Not to mention that to say their games ar similar enough that a fan of one would be likely to fan of the others seems to be streching it - see Bohnanza vs Agricola for Rosenberg, for example. All of which is to say, I think any impression of designer/publisher came from the fans - since they had the one game first that was a hit - and not from the company itself
Yes, some designers will have some different games, but if you play Agricola, there is a good chance that you will like Gates of Loyang, Le Havre, and Caverna. Not everything will be the same, but it can be close. See a Knizia game, you can bet it's an abstract with a pasted on theme. Alan Moon won't be that complex etc.
My point was not that each one of those are designers and publishers, but rather the fan base for a designer vs a publisher is very different. You react differently to a new Rosenberg game, then to a new Fantasy Flight game.
This was one of the missteps with GSF. It gave off the same impressions as SotM, the light-hearted feel, but it was much heavier and more complex. A group that played SotM might not like GSF. This wasn't expressed clearly. Many people viewed it as another game from the same designer, and had certain expectations.
As I mentioned above, the impressions wrong impression might be ours, but GtG has done nothing to alleviate this. Sentinel Conflicts is not a new SotM game, it a re-themed story game. If so, why are the only posts about this in the SotM forum and not the Story Wars forums. They only exposed it to certain people, which gives off the wrong impression.
When we finally get a comic book, it is attached to a completely different game, this is not giving the impression that they are separate.
Redgardless of whose fault it is about a designer/publisher, there is clearly a huge disconnect. Threads like thia, and on BGG, are proof to that.
BattleCon: Devastation of Indines: 8.56/10 http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/123123/battlecon-devastation-indines
I've yet to see any Dragon Tides reviews, but The Operative appears in it: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/682539325/return-of-the-dragon
So what is the standard for these reviews where SotM or >G being associated with a game is worth someone losing their faith in the company? I'm assuming it's somewhere between 5.5 and 6.08 based on these stats. Or is it below the lowest SotM review of 7.56? Is 6.37 for GSF considered a success or is that when people should have lost faith in >G?
I'm sorry if this is vitriolic but I'm still very confused about how negative reviews are being valued here.
Reckless: Game reviews are like movie reviews. Highly subjective and skewed towards a certain audience. There are movies that get paned in reviews that still manage to have a very loyal following. Grandmas Boy was destroyed by reviewers but manages to be one of the funniest movies ever made. Hell, even Cassablanca, a classic movie gem, was ripped to shreds when it came out. Godfather II. Same thing. Are you gonna try and tell me those are failures of their genre? Games are no different.
Does success and failure hinge upon mass appeal? Or does it hinge on finding a sect of people that enjoy what you are putting out?
If your argument is that Story Wars won't find it's niche of folks who like it, thats fine, and I will still disagree. But if you are arguing that you need mass appeal to be a success than I think you are making a wildly flawed argument.
No…I'm genuinely asking why people are freaking out over reviews because they seem rather insignificant in the grand scheme. I'm geniunely confused about why Story War's 5.5 is a "bad" rating for >G to associate with when they associated with Pixel Lincoln's 6.09.
I'm all in favor of playing Story Wars with my niece and nephew. I'm interested in what comes of it. But other people seem to think that since our old pal Tom Vassel thinks it's not so hot and it has a low review on BGG that >G are somehow less than what they were before.
So…to answer your questions… 1. I'm not familiar enough with cinema to give you an informed perspective.
2. I think mass appeal and cult classics both have something to offer.
I'm saying "What is the problem here, folks? I'm genuinely confused as to what value people are attaching to all of these numbers and what is qualified as "good" or "bad", since Story War has been pigeonholed into the "bad" side of things by naysayers based on low ratings. Here is some sample data for this subject to provide a baseline, please give me your qualities for good or bad, and have a nice day."
Now I'm curious if the PDF version (just announced) will be available after the kickstarter. Like many here, I'm not interested in Story Wars. At all. I would more prefer that my money not even go towards the kickstarter at all, even if that seems a little petty. I just feel like that is lying to >G that they have a larger backing for a game than they actually do. Hmmm, we shall see...
Also, they're making the comic book sound a bit more of a premium quality than one would initially assume when you think of a "comic book." Plus, stretch goals are apparently upgrading the quailty even more. That makes me feel better about pledging.