There are plenty of corporations/business entities out there that have been started up on seed money. Think of grants, scholarships, donations, non-profits, etc. In this age of freeware vs. corporate models is this such an incredulous concept?
The idea behind many huge movements today is to be a part of something. If you take a risk to donate $5, you could potentially lose it yes, but you could also say that you helped launch something big.
I'm a fan of the complete ingenuity of this entire concept. We've all seen and played the timeless smash and grab player-controlled games that have dominated our obsessions since Pong. However, in this day and age with video games becoming more and more complex, I love this simple idea. Instead of letting the player with the best reflexes, or an ability to seek out glitches in game play become the best, this concept attacks it from a completely different means. A game where creativity, humor, engineering, and street smarts all combine into one to form a brand new niche for gamers.
I've read all of the comments thus far and I have to say that I agree with many points on both sides. However, I would have to definitively say that if you want to control your player, this concept isn't for you. This is of course through the basic player moves that so many people are used to. Click A for jump, B for attack, different combo moves etc. Yes this appeals to many for great gaming, but I would argue that it is a gaming genre that may be at it's absolute peak. Even with today's most complicated games, there is a certain amount of creativity, street smarts and ingenuity in how you play the game.
What I love most about these arguments is that the creator (argued most notably for by dave_chenell) is telling you that you in fact DO have control over your character and the fight. It's just a higher level of control than one is used to. Basically, the 'player' gets to play 'god' in creating characters. By changing the slightest drawing, weapon accessory, and proportions (as is my understanding of this algorithm), one has complete control in how one should act in an all out brawl. If you want your gorilla to have great grappling moves, provide him with powerful arms, etc. I would argue that this feature gives complete control to the gamer.
This game type wouldn't be for anyone, that is certain. However, look at the massive amount of popularity games like Armadillo Run (http://www.armadillorun.com/) have received. You don't have any control over the armadillo in this either. One must use their knowledge of physics, materials, and common sense in order to build a device to complete the objective, like a puzzle. This graFighters idea seems very similar; spend some time playing to learn how the game works, and it'll be just as addicting.
I understand that this concept isn't for everyone and it'll be tough to spread word to gamers who are willing to give it a shot based just on concept alone. But let me ask these gamers something. How many times have you been bored maybe in class or talking on the phone, and you doodle some complex robot. Maybe you give him a lightsaber for good measure. Wouldn't it be nice to put him to some use instead of tossing him away with your class notes?
The idea behind many huge movements today is to be a part of something. If you take a risk to donate $5, you could potentially lose it yes, but you could also say that you helped launch something big.