I'd like to see it make it. The big reservation I have right now is all of the talk about rebuilding from scratch to make it more playable on modern systems. If this is for updated graphics and textures, sure, that sounds fine to me. However, it also screams "consolization" to me, and I don't feel very good about supporting turning a PC classic masterpiece into that.
I'll probably get some shit for stating that, but I do play on consoles too. I just want console games to be console games though and my PC games to play to PC gaming's strengths.
IAmSinistar: They've garnered about $80,000 in roughly 24 hours of watching the funding, so they could very well make goal. That's provided the lion's share of the funding doesn't come in the first few days. Anyone seen a graph of the typical funding curve for such things?
In my experience, most of a project's funding comes in the first couple of days and then another big spike in funding in the last few remaining days. A good goal to hit is 50% in the first two days, but that can still be a little worrisome for a successful project and if it does indeed make it, they usually just barely get funded if they only hit 50% at the beginning.
Like groze said though, it's not exact. It's not a steady stream of funding. Some projects have been able to overcome a poor start, though a lot of that has to do with the will of the project creators to do whatever they can. I've seen some go to game forums and post very informative and helpful things to people who might be on the fence. Some projects try to get a spot on a gaming news website article. Usually these initiatives will provide a small jolt, but several small jolts can be all the difference on whether the project is funded or not.
Then, on the other hand, I've seen some that basically resort to spam self-advertising in game forums and comments. This often turns people off and when people asked why they should pledge, it was basically "Uhhh...cause we need da moneyz."