Carmageddon Racing Series Being Revived By Original Developers

By Ishaan . May 8, 2012 . 10:30am

Who here remembers Carmageddon? The car combat series started out on DOS/Windows and continued for another two games before finally being retired in the year 2000. This week, the original developer, Stainless Games, announced that they’re developing a reboot of the series, titled Carmageddon: Reincarnation, and it’s being funded via Kickstarter. Here’s their pitch:



Here’s the gist of it: Stainless say they’ve bought back all the rights to Carmageddon, meaning they now own the I.P. They intend to reboot the brand, and will do so with Carmageddon: Reincarnation. Once the game is completed and released, Stainless will release their development tools so that fans can create their own mods for the game as well.


The first release of Carmageddon: Reincarnation is currently planned for February 2013 on Steam. Stainless say the game will be iterative and they’ll add more and more features to it over time. Anyone that contributes $15 or more to the Kickstarter drive will get the initial release for free.

Read more stories about & on Siliconera.

  • SirRichard

    It’s by far the best Kickstarter I’ve seen yet, that’s for sure, and it’s incredible that they managed to get the rights back. Backing this one for sure.

  • malek86

    Wow, this game was pretty meh even at release, and relied almost entirely on the shock value to sell. I’m not sure why someone felt the need to make another one today, when the shock value doesn’t amount to much anymore. Nonetheless, if they do reach their goal (it will probably reach it easily, as Carmageddon is a cult darling, for some unknown reason), good for them. I’m willing to give it a chance when it gets out.

    • SirRichard

      “Wow, this game was pretty meh even at release, and relied almost entirely on the shock value to sell.”

      Are you even talking about the same Carmageddon? Shock factor was doubtless a factor in the series’ rise to fame but to say that that’s all it had going for it is ignorant. That “unknown reason” for it being an old darling? It was fun, seriously fun, and it still is. Both games were and are critically acclaimed, 

      How many games, in the days of 1997 & 1998, just handed you a killing machine and let you go wild? Carmageddon was fun because it just let you wreak havoc and cause as much carnage as you could, it’s the exact same thing that made Grand Theft Auto III explode. Massive (for the time) environments filled with loads of destructible things and harmless innocents to aim for, it basically set the foundations for modern sandbox games.

      Maybe you didn’t enjoy it. Fair enough. But to dismiss it outright because of that just isn’t fair. It wasn’t “pretty meh” at release, it was something new, crazy and fun and people loved it. It isn’t selling itself on shock value, it’s selling itself on being a game in which you shut your brain off and wreck everything around you.

      • malek86

        I guess you’re right. Still doesn’t change the fact that it just didn’t feel fun to me. But then, I also don’t find GTA to be fun either, so I guess it’s just me.

        Nonetheless, I think it’s pretty obvious that its reputation today doesn’t amount to much more than “that game where you ran over people”.

        • SirRichard

          That’s still just selling it short, though; many people who played it still hold Carmageddon in high regard, as mirumu pointed out above some still hold it as their favourite game. If you really must put it simply, it’s not “that game where you ran over people”, it’s “that awesome game where you ran over people”.

          True, 2 million sales apiece isn’t much these days, but that’s still a lot of people who more often than not remember it fondly. People welcomed the revival of Mortal Kombat with open arms, odds are they’ll welcome back Carmageddon.

    • mirumu

      I never especially liked it myself from my limited time of playing it back in the day, but I’ve a number of friends who claim Carmageddon as either their favorite game, or high up their list. It must have had something to achieve that.

  • aoihana

    I like their no BS approach in their kickstarter project. Straight and to the point!

    This is the first time I’ve heard of Carmageddon, and probably with good reason! It looks terrifying! The cover especially! (´Д`。)

    I love the concept of driving around causing absolute and utter chaos, and I love how they pioneered such a game in their time. 

    It’s interesting how they’re going to reward some kickstarter’s by incorporating them into the game. Though, it’s pretty obvious you need to make a hefty contribution for such an appearance. I always wanted to be mangled and trampled in a video game… (*^ワ^*)

    Pretty awesome! I wish them the best, and he said it best: 

    Together we can create a world no longer reliant on big corporate publishers.

    I love kickstarter projects, and a companies determination to bring a product they love to the rest of the world. It’s even better when they succeed, so if you’re really interested, please contribute! ლ(´ڡ`ლ)

    • malek86

      “Together we can create a world no longer reliant on big corporate publishers.”

      Bold words, but people need to understand what they actually mean and whether it really makes a difference.

      To get an at least mid-sized game funded on KS, you have to be a popular person. Schafer got 3 million dollars? Well duh, he’s Schafer. Wasteland 2 got funded? Of course, any Fallout fan remembers Wasteland fondly. Jane Jensen, Al Lowe, and other popular designers/writers got funded too. That’s because people trust them. But now try being a nobody. You could have the greatest idea ever, but you won’t get many funds, because people are inherently distrustful of anything they don’t know.

      So KS ends up being mostly a private circle for few elites. If you are popular, or if you are trying to get funds for a popular games, you will probably make it. But that’s not much different from what publishers do, is it? Publishers are wary of games that might not make money, but a game by a popular designer or from a popular series will certainly have more chances than a game nobody knows. Therefore, funders end up acting exactly like publishers in this regard.

      Actually, publishers are even a little bit more open than funders. Because while consumers might buy a game they don’t know if they think it’s fun/try the demo/see the videos, on the other hand funders won’t give money to a game they don’t know. Too risky, especially because often Kickstarters don’t have anything concrete about the games they want to make. For comparison, a publisher might still back an unknown game, if they think it has a chance at making money once it gets advertised enough. After all, companies exist to take risks and try to turn them into money, something you can’t say about normal people – they will avoid taking risks unless it’s necessary or they really like whatever they have to pay for.

      Put in extreme words, the problem here is that a world free of publishers is probably a world where developers would only make sequels. Which is not much different than today. After all, be it publishers or developers, everyone has to follow market demand.

      • mirumu

        I think there’s definitely some truth in what you say, but I don’t expect the outcome you predict will actually happen.

        I’ve supported quite a few Kickstarters projects personally both big and small. Some succeeded and some failed. So far the big names have always succeeded, but I don’t think it’s entirely because of who they are. They have been scratching an itch, especially in the adventure game market, that has gone unsatisfied for a long time. They were all games that no publisher would touch and the fanbase had pent-up demand. They succeeded because they were by-and-large good ideas who’s time had come.

        The projects without big names that succeed are those with compelling well formed ideas, and usually they had already done a lot of the ground work. From my experience games that do something new and different are actually some of the most likely to succeed, and personally I’m more inclined to support those projects as well. That’s almost the opposite of what you’re suggesting will happen. Games that look generic or aren’t adding anything of value don’t tend to do well at all. It’s possible too that if new ideas prove themselves this way the big commercial publishers will take a second look at them or learn from them too.

        There is definitely the potential for funders to act like publishers, but it isn’t happening today, and people are still not fully aware of how these experiments are going to play out. Many view it as little but “pre-ordering”, and others seem to be all about the tiered rewards. Some view it as “begging” and refuse to contribute at all. How the current batch of projects turn out will influence how we look at this style of funding in the future. If they’re a success some of the naysayers may change their tune, and if there’s a big failure where someone takes off with the funds then many will be seriously and justifiably angry.

        Personally I view it more as old time patronage. If the developers convince me their idea is sound, that the project is real, and in my view the world is a better place with their idea realised then I’m open to helping fund it. I anticipate there will be some projects that fail even after being funded. That’s always been the risk with such systems, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.

        • malek86

          I do think kickstarting can coexist with the current publishing model (though it cannot possibly replace it, at least not for a very long time), although I don’t believe it will have too much of an impact on the general market.

          But I just hope the bubble won’t burst on itself once some medium/big project eventually fails (and at some point it will probably happen – because KS has said that they are only in there for the initial service, they don’t force the developers to make true on their promises) and people get scared because of it. Who knows, maybe a game that gets only as much as its goal, and then has to spend more money than they predicted beause of lack of organization or budgeting skills (publishers do give the advantage that they will be the ones taking care of all legal matters).

          Perhaps, then, once it does happen, people will start requiring more warranties, a stronger control – at which point, the system will start feeling a lot more like standard publishing. Or maybe it will be something different, but still constricted to a point that developers won’t just be able to do what they want anymore, unlike now.

          Overall, all systems tend to move toward some kind of self-organization. I predict this will be no exception.

          • mirumu

             I’m sure you’re right there. Currently it does have a bit of a wild west feel to it.

Video game stories from other sites on the web. These links leave Siliconera.

Siliconera Tests
Siliconera Videos