Well they commissioned the art. They didn't make it themselves, so I would point the finger the lazy artist(s) who did it.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/hardcore-tactical-shooter-fails-take-2-try-again.70645/page-2#post-2023613

It appears that the idiot whom they commissioned got really lazy, and decided to just throw in a few filters, change the hue, saturation and colour balances and thought he could get away with it. I'd be less appalled, and even supportive towards the project, if Christian Allen had just made an apology on behalf of the "artist" and removed the concept art. To have this sort of embarrassment pointed out and still continue to defend it, well this is just disrespectful.

(this still applies even if it wasn't a Photoshop job)

On the sidenote, I heard about this project on the RPS forums, called Intruder. TBH it looks very promising, and is worth checking out if you're disappointed with how Serellan's handling their KS project and really need a new hardcore tac shooter to look forward to.

Yeah I saw that one earlier, it looks pretty good. I'm not big on multiplayer though (mostly due to my bad internet and irregular work hours) so that might keep me from playing it much.

This "Takedown" kickstarter is becoming more and more of a joke each update. I love the genre but Chris Allen seems to be totally abusing the system (intentionally or unintentionally) and I just never felt I could trust him with my money. In the end, Kickstarter depends immensely on trust and gamers/developers honour.

This Kickstarter is a fail on so many levels. Look at this forum post by Christian Allen, he's actually encouraging people to make "fake" donations by increasing and later decreasing their pledges.

http://www.serellan.com/forums/index.php?/topic/189-if-we-hit-100000-i-will-double-my-pledge/page__st__40__p__3184#entry3184

I did not have any interest in this project right from the beginning, but this is really getting sillier with each update... I hope this kickstarter fails so it won't encourage others to start similar projects.

Saw a few articles about this one. Anyone else read how this kickstarter is more like a 'proof to private investors' rather than a genuine attempt to fully fund from crowdsourcing????? .Bit dodgy.
Not backing...

I'm gonna come clean.

I hate intensely tactical shooters. So this has no appeal to me even if it was done right, which it wasn't.

I liked Rainbow Six when Vegas came out and not before. TAKE THAT GOGGERS!

Glad I cancelled my pledge yesterday.

All of these "new improvements" and "promotion ideas" make me sad. I do not care for tactical shooters, sorry to say that. But I definitely do not like how this project is done. Especially since it has initially gotten so much public attention.
It would have been so much better for everyone if those guy(s) just spent more time on planning and thinking this through. Even if after that they would put a higher total requested sum it would be OK - and if they failed in that case it would have also been much more OK for everyone (and kickstarter in particular) than doing what they are up to now.

lol, I don't think that anyone here is too concerned if you don't like a particular genre.

If you said "Steam is the best, I won't back this unless its on steam", then you might have got an interesting response.

I dunno if this is the kind of game that I'd like, but it sounded kinda interesting, and I figured that it was worth sending a signal to publishers that indie developers need more attention and support.

Lets apply some context here, specifically for this quote from his post:

"Remember, you can increase now, and decrease later, if I add a $125, you can adjust...we need momentum now more than anything...you can always adjust to the level that hits your sweet spot."

From what I can see, he is responding to people posting on the forums who want an additional reward pledge in-between the $100 and $150 currently on the kickstarter page, saying that they can pledge more now, then go lower when he makes a reward for that amount. In regards to gaining momentum, he is basically asking them to "pad" their pledges to generate more interest in the campaign: people should be more willing to contribute if they are closer to their goal.

It's a very shady tactic, one i should hope other kickstarters do not copy. It saddens me that he has to resort to such desperate measures to scrape up whatever pledges he can, but it does show how dedicated he is to getting this game made, whatever the cost.

There's no doubt they need momentum to accomplish their goal. The question is, should it matter where it comes from?

(Not gonna answer that because I'm incredibly biased towards this game and want it to get made no matter what.)

But then again, will the game really be made, no matter what, if the kickstarter succeeds? I saw no definite answer on the kickstarter page; they claim to have some investors "lined up" that are not sure about the viability of the project, without giving any more specific information. Who says those investors will really back the project (if the kickstarter succeeds) rather than decide that $200k in pledges is not enough money?