One has also to be realistic. Read my post again carefully. My wish is for a Wasteland 2 that keeps all that was good in the original and makes better of the parts that work less today. Something that is deeper than most CRPGS today but does not push away a less-than-hardcore player like many older CRPGS do. It would not be a mainstream production but it would still be open to new players that have never heard of Wasteland, or are just curious about another post-apocalyptic game after Fallout (for this reason I think the fact Wasteland is legimately its grandaddy should be even a marketing point).
That's what I call "compromise" instead of just making the same exact game a quarter century later, to satisfy the old players, and them only. Is that inherently bad? If it sounds like I'm telling an industry veteran how to do, well, my bad. Think, however, of the different approach a project like this has: you basically ask people to give you money for something that doesn't still exists, or exists only as a project, or is partially done at best. You are asking the players to finance the game's production. Should I give you the money blindly, or should I want to know your plans better?
By a look at Fargo's Twitter, however, he's digging out all the old stuff he has about the production of Wasteland, so I'm inclined to think he will prepare a convincing project presentation.
Since I'm not familiar with Kickstarter, how does it work if a project fails to deliver? Is your money refunded, or is it "well, your loss"?