Quoted from dtrimberger:Good interview but can I request that next time you have Dennis join you? It would be nice to have a critical eye/bad cop to counter your everything is awesome/good cop vibe. I’d have liked to hear Spooky address how they’ve improved their design process (or what they learned from Halloween), how they’re fixing company QC and what experience their new coders bring. They hinted at some of that but you didn’t press them further, maybe that was by choice.
Spooky is charging way too much for games to profess a "we've learned, we've figured it out" line with each new release. They talk a really good game, but the substance associated with their non-Danesi titles speaks volumes... and that's coming from a person that's purchased 3 Spooky games.
Halloween was essentially a $9,000 project, and from the sounds of things, Scooby is another. They basically said they winged it to see what would work (saying something to the effect of: throwing things at a wall to see what would stick). Personally, based on the fact Fawzma was a known weak-link on ACNC, and he returned for failed stint on Halloween, I have no reason to place blind faith on a new programmer that's never coded a pinball machine. And, no insult to Corwin, Luke, and the new rules guy... but I'd have to see a finished product, both physical and code, before I sent $9-$10K for a game.
The initial rules highlighted in the TWIP article are stripped down to beta/basic levels. And the Spooky has shown ZERO spontaneous game play.
I've played Halloween. I owned ACNC. The simple fact is these titles look good, but they drive like crap. There's a reason why Stern and JJP game play like professionally made pinball machines, and that's because the designers and coders backing them have decades of creation experience. As much as I like the Spooky story, and as much as I support Spooky's quest, I'm not spending nearly $10,000 on a product that's not crafted with experience.
Sorry, but that's the reality of the situation.
So, Spooky can talk about how "this time it's different" and "we've improved," but I won't believe it until I see and experience it, myself. Show me a Scooby game that ships with consistent quality manufacturing. Show me a Scooby game that possesses a geometry that works in the real world. Show me a stable code that's cohesive, with a sound and lightshow that flawlessly integrates. Show me code that has thoughtful rules that actually integrate well into gameplay. And I'll show you money.
I'm waiting, Spooky. Until you can show me that with your current team – ie, a team that doesn't have Scott Danesi involved – then I'll be more comfortable.
Still tho, the fact that Scooby has an entirely new – untested in the real world – board set, after you just rolled out two games with a new (now defunct?) board set... and that you've used two different boardset platforms prior, blows my mind. I think everyone should be paying attention.
Evansville, IN
71B39AF9-AFD6-4A91-A8F2-41CE7CD639B3 (resized).jpeg
Melbourne, ON
