How to improve Matt Chat?

[groke]

Matt needs to take a speech/debating course or something; his interviews are great, but he doesn't carry himself that well and like others mentioned, he really needs to follow-up on his questions (and just respond more organically to his subject in general.)

 

[Shaewaroz]

I should point out that the reviews of modern releases tend to get many more views than anything else, including retrospectives of classics and even big-name interviews.

Matt, do you really count views? Then I suggest you start making videos about cute kittens or college girl wet shirt contests. Views don't mean anything. You get enough money through Patreon so stop worrying about the views.

As for being more aggressive or agenda-driven in the interviews, that's just not my thing. I'm not there to interrogate folks or badger them about things they don't want to discuss. Just not my style or personality.

I can respect this and I actually think a less aggressive approach suits the interviews better. I like the interviews the way they are now. Just a bit more follow-up questions maybe. Keep up the good work.

I'm flattered they they've put so much thought into the show!

I hope you take this as constructive feedback from the viewers. I won't say fans because we're not drooling idol worshipers but rational individuals who see that you're doing something really valuable. Please don't let us down.

 

[Sceptic]

I actually think Matt has been trying harder to do that in recent interviews. He's just not good enough at it.

I saw this in the Woodhead interview. Woodhead didn't understand some of what Matt was implying and went on a much less interesting tangent than what Matt was actually asking. A more aggressive interviewer might've tried to steer him back, but as Matt admits it's just not his style or the kind of person he is, and I don't think, given this, that he should even try to be more forceful. I said this before I think, I like the fact that Matt is more in the background, it gives more space for the interviewee to share thoughts that they might not if they feel they're being funnelled down a particular route. Of course the quality of the interview then relies on the interviewee actually going along with it and sharing obscure interesting tidbits, but more often than not I find that it works (Fargo's is an excellent example). Being harder might pay off if the interviewee is willing, but I'm certain the reason so many people agree to the interview in the first place is because he's so mellow - and that's not a bad thing.

I know I've been hard on Matt in the past (and I still steer clear of his "reviews") but I love what he does with the interviews. I still get to hear an hour-long interview from someone who made games that I loved 20+ years ago, and it's just not the same kind of information that you'd get from the Digital Antiquarian - both serve their purpose, but I find Matt's interviews much more interesting - the Antiquarian is just reminding me of stuff as it happened at the time, and that I already knew. With Matt I get to hear Robert Sirotek admitting he thinks publishing Wiz 4 was a bad idea - I've always suspected he thought this, but getting confirmation from the man himself is always more interesting, especially since I can now openly say "Yep, I see why he's saying this from a business standpoint, but from a gamer's standpoint he's completely wrong."

 

[Shaewaroz]

I'd like to remind the viewers that people actually pay him 500$ per video no matter the content. He can upload a video of making fart noises and make 500$.

I think the Patreon supporters have a say on the quality and direction of his channels content. I, for one, don't feel that his hasty gameplay videos are worth my money. I pay for the interviews.

Unfortunately there is no option on Patreon to only pay for the interviews.

Split up an interview into 4 parts, PROFIT!

(I cant criticise as I'd do exactly the same thing)

At least the Patreon supporters can choose a 4 donation gap per month. And Matt only uploads 4 videos per month anyway. I don't blame him for splitting the interviews into multiple parts. 30-45 min interview segments are much easier to digest than 2,5 hour beasts.

 

[TheGreatOne]

Put a question timeline in the description. And like every one has already said, follow up questions. If I recall correctly, even in his latest interview Woodhead said something really interesting and Matt just sat thee staring at his notes and asked the next question. Completely killed flow when he was just warming up and got actually exited about the subject.

 

[toro]

These guys tend to be pretty inflammatory, so it might not be safe for work.

Right. Vote pool is missing the option "Matt-who?".

 

[Deleted member 7219]

I only watch it when he's got a big name on like Brian Fargo, Feargus Urquhart or Chris Avellone.

My only suggestion to him would be to stop splitting the big interviews up into parts which only get released one a month or something lame like that. Release them in one complete segment instead.

In terms of requests, I'd like to see him speak to George Ziets and Kevin Saunders about Mask of the Betrayer and maybe our very own Vault Dweller about Age of Decadence, a short while after its release.

 

[Infinitron]

My only suggestion to him would be to stop splitting the big interviews up into parts which only get released one a month or something lame like that. Release them in one complete segment instead.

Yeah, publish two hour YouTube videos, that's how he'll get his views up.

He generally publishes interview episodes a few days to a week from each other.

 

[Neckbeard Shitlord]

I have come to love Matt Chat. I think branching out into other genres would be good, like strategy. I am not sure how well it will work if he doesn't like those genres, though.

I think he needs more followup questions, just not such pointed ones as some suggest. You can only direct the conversation so much. But with Robert Woodhead, half the answers didn't even really address the question he asked, which I don't think is on purpose.

Maybe a list of subjects, plus take opportunity to ask about any interesting bits. Plus make some of the questions more specific.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Yeah, follow-up questions don't have to be too pointed/aggressive but he should really learn to react to what the interviewee says in a meaningful way. This means simple things, really, like if you ask Sirotek about Brenda Romero and he mentions Linda Currie, maybe you should ask him about Linda in more detail as well as about how the team was structured, etc.*

Just to, you know, interact with what the other person says and not just move on to the next question on your pre-made list. Video chat is supposed to be more interactive/spontaneous.

* (This is just an example, I don't actually recall how that interview went in detail.)

Of course, more in-depth pointed questions about RPG mechanics etc. would be good too, but I guess Matt just isn't particularly good with that.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

Man, he sure got a lot of criticism in this thread, for someone who provides an excellent resource for people on this website. Not that all of that criticism is without merit, but you know the saying, don't let perfect be the enemy of good. I really enjoy his interviews, and usually watch them right after completing some old RPG, to see how that RPG was developed.

 

[Ninjerk]

I think it would be cool to have panel discussions, but right now I think it's pretty good as is.

 

[SniperHF]

Not necessarily on the improving the show angle, but I think Matt should be consistent with various forms of outreach. It seemed like 4-5 months ago he was putting more effort in this but then pulled back. Then there was that whole Yelp twitter disaster

I also agree about diversifying the game genre coverage if possible. Though it seems RPG developers are flat out more accessible.

Split up an interview into 4 parts, PROFIT!

(I cant criticise as I'd do exactly the same thing)

Well to be fair he did this before Patreon. I wonder if the older style interviews he did were more popular/accessible. The ones that were heavily edited and didn't include the questions. I prefer the full interview uncut but it might be worth trying to make edited versions as an alternative once in a while to see how they do.

 

[Charles-cgr]

Mostly Matt seems to span interviews over more than one episode to keep them reasonably long and watchable. Apparently the entire interview is done before the first episode is up (there might have been a couple exceptions to this). It might help his viewership to ask the guest in advance if they'd be up for a second take with questions from the Youtube comments in the first run. I see many advantages to this. More comments (which lead to better exposure for the video if I have any understanding of the way Google does things), more buzz (people actually spreading the message that they can ask questions and have a chance to have them answered directly by the guest), more material (as opposed to having to rely on his own knowledge or research) and more videos (an extra for each guest that agrees, knowing he's probably going to run out of interesting names sooner or later).

It wouldn't be nearly as damaging as trying to direct the interviews towards more controversial areas but could lead towards those being covered if the guest is willing. He'd have a chance to review the list of questions which would be public and ask that the most intrusive questions be avoided. It would still leave room for interesting things to happen that Matt may not have thought of, or not dare ask when in fact it wouldn't have been a problem.

The way I think he'd have to go about it though is ask the guest if he'd be willing to set up a follow up interview a week later to answer questions the first interview sparked in the discussions (ask that before the first interview is done). Some might say no but unlike becoming too directive it shouldn't scare away future guests and the benefit for viewers would come from all or any that say yes. And for those that do, announce in the first video that the guest will be taking questions from viewers and answer them in a follow-up episode.

Best case scenario, it improves his show's viewership and gives him access to people that didn't want to bother with it up until then and makes him more money, which improves his show's lifespan. It should also improve content quality and make it somewhat interactive. Worst case, few or no guests agree to make themselves available a second time around and little or nothing changes.

 

[Luzur]

A couple of tits every now and then wont hurt, even better if presented along with some retro game.

 

[rpgcodexusername]

OK I made a snarky comment about Matt splitting up the videos for profit. To be honest splitting them up is probably the best way of doing it from both Matt's and our point of view.

To improve the show he could start reviewing cars and guns, and shoot targets from a moving car.

 

[MicoSelva]

Matt is better at doing these playthrough-reviews than conducting interviews, but interviews are the more interesting (and unique) part of Matt Chat. I like both parts and would be sad to see any of them go away.

The beer part, I do not really care about, but I do not mind it either. Leave it be.

The show does not need improvements as much as a boost in popularity (although it seems to be doing somewhat better in this regard recently), which could be provided by inviting some more prominent guests and/or covering more popular games. Maybe Dragon Age Inquisition could work? Not sure.

 

[Infinitron]

I do wonder if he's ever tried to invite David Gaider for an interview.

 

[Luzur]

OK I made a snarky comment about Matt splitting up the videos for profit. To be honest splitting them up is probably the best way of doing it from both Matt's and our point of view.

To improve the show he could start reviewing cars and guns, and shoot targets from a moving car.

i wouldnt mind if he started showing Flintlock guns, and fire them from moving vehicles.

 

[TheGreatOne]

David W. Bradley and Cleve interviews need to happen, though from what I recall he has tried contacting Cleve.

 

[Shaewaroz]

Also less rat jokes and freudian penis jokes.

 

[Shaewaroz]

*** Matt Chat needs your help! *** The show took a major hit this week with the loss of an executive producer. If you like Matt Chat and interviews with amazing talents like Styg, please support the show with a small financial contribution. I don't ask much! Just $1 per episode, or more if you're willing and able. If you honestly feel that my show isn't worth supporting, please let me know whatever I can do to make it so.

#DoritosChat

 

[Destroid]

Usually his interview videos are split into 15-20 minute interview segments, that's ok. Although his personal segment at the end has been getting longer, which I suppose is annoying if you are using the length of the video as an estimate of actual interesting content.

 

[Mustawd]

I think Matt's finally gotten the hang of it a bit more, Really enjoying his videos a lot now. Interviews are the best. Not a big fan of his retrospectives.

 

[kwanzabot]

he should pay some black girls to twerk behind the scenes while he speaks, if i ever won the lottery thats the first thing i would do