Our indie interview

[Vault Dweller]

I invited Jason Compton (The Broken Hourglass), Thomas Riegsecker (Eschalon: Book I), and Steven Peeler (Depths of Peril) to talk about what we do, how, and why. This is my attempt to present the indie developers as a viable and interesting alternative to mainstream games, so <a href=http://www.rpgcodex.com/content.php?id=143>do take a look</a>:

<blockquote><b>4. Story and everything related to it. How did you come up with this load of crap, why, and what does it add to your game? Does it drive it (i.e. story-driven), does it explain the cruelty to poor monsters, does it branch out, is it linear, does it have an "OMG! I am Revan!" twist? Why? Did you cry when Aeris died?</b>

Jason: We're so far along now that the origins of the story are starting to enter the "mists of time" state. I'm sure it was motivated in equal parts by pragmatism ("What's the best way to tell our story in this setting given our budget?") and intrigue ("How can we explore themes of obsession, suspicion, and trust?")

Certainly, the story is the driver of the game. If you're not playing the story, there's only so much you can do. As I've said before, we leave the "sandboxing" to others who can do it better. So while you could bum around town just interacting with your party and looking for shopkeepers to rob, in the long run without the story you run out of things to do.

Our structure requires that you complete some major quest milestones before progressing to the endgame. In theory these major quests may be done in any order, although a couple of them will not be immediately obvious when you set foot out the door of the starting house. Along the way you will find yourself entangled in various other situations you stumble into or are even sought out to resolve.

No, we have no identity bombshells for the player character. You can find out more about yourself through how you choose to interact with your party, who you decide to engage in a romance with (or not), etc. And I've never played the Final Fantasy games. But I cried when Floyd died. Both times. </blockquote>

 

[Nedrah]

It's really nice to see some real content for a change.
Between this and the (great) indy interview, I can only hope that this would be a sign of good things to come.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Wow, this was a great idea. At first I was going to make a silly joke on how RPGCodex always focus so much on indies (One third of the news consists of indie-news FFS, mainstream is where it's at, and so on) vs Oblivion news (I've found SEVERAL Oblivion-related news that hasn't been reported here!). Then I was going to complain on why you didn't split this up in four interviews, thus having more leverage to smack in the face of those who constantly complain of the Codex "decline". But when I finished the piece, I realized how good this actually was.

First off, there was a lot that was news to me regarding the various games, Depths of Peril (which judging from the screenshots rather should be named Depths of Bubblegum, not much peril to see there) seems far more interesting now. I'm usually not all that interested in Action RPGs (have yet to play both Sacred and Fate, but they're on my to do list, from all the cred they get around these corners), but Depths of Peril seems somewhat original and interesting. And this quote alone, deserves to be rewarded by me buying:

Depths of Peril is an action RPG, so magic really is another way to kill monsters.

Now, how about that. Refreshingly honest.

Then you have the whole indie comparison-chart concept, which work out great. It's absolutely hilarious to read one developers take on some random RPG-cliche and tout how and how they went about avoiding it, then to have another developer to feature just that cliche. Especially The Broken Hourglass and Eschalon have this going between them. Then you have Depths of Peril that surprises in the rolplaying-section of the Action RPG, they clearly state an emphasis on consequences for your actions, and even put a number to how many words they have put in their game. Then you have your own game that, well, seemingly is devoid of any of the cliches the others either try to avoid or purposely do include.

Lastly, it's a rather original take on doing interviews. I haven't seen it done like this around these corners anyway. One thing that strikes me through this entire interview is how these games all appeal to different parts of the RPG-crowd. We have party based high fantasy, though trying to avoid some of the traditional RPG-cliches with an emphasis on original gameworld and story. There is a single character high fantasy, going all in on the classic conventions and traditions in the genre, with lotsa monsters lotsa magic = no questions asked, with an old school number crunching character system aiming to please those who enjoy to micromanage every stat and aspect of your character. You have a pure bred Action RPG, with some original twists, and a more than usual focus on actual role playing. And lastly, a game that focuses on the role playing, having a consequence for every action, multiple paths through the game with lots of fractions, lots of dialogue, but still having a good take on the fighting. If they all deliver, and are objectively good games in their respective area, then we, the RPG fans, are in for good times. Looking at screenshots from all the games, they are all more than satisfying in the graphics-domain, so if they just deliver the gameplay they promise and get their games out to the masses, this will be a big fuck you to the mainstream RPG-developers/publishers. Provided that we, the fans, buy these games, I think the industry are in for a serious wake-up call. Either way, we win.

Then, for some critique:
There are some thins in this interview that needs to be more clarified. While interviewing yourself in your own "media", is a bit on the edge of any "journalistic-ethic", or whatever it should be called, I personally don't have a problem with it. In any case it should be clarified to a much larger extent than it is, that you Vault Dweller, who is asking the questions, and Vince D. Weller, who is interviewed, is the same person. The regulars on the Codex surely know this, but for random visitors this isn't as clear as it should be. It shouldn't be the reader who has to figure this out during the course of the interview, he should be know right of the bat. I see you write "I invited" and "to talk about what we do" in the news post, but it should be stated far more clearly than that, and in the interview it self. It is a bit shady to interview one self when you obviously have commercial interests, and personal gain from this. Again, I don't have any problems with it, but some might. And it might damage the Codex credibility (oxymoron, lol?) if it stays like it is right now.

And while you're at editing the interview, it should be further clarified whether you guys actually sat down and had a chat, in person or via some chat of sorts, or if the interview was conducted through e-mail. Because as it is now, the part where it says "The answers are posted in the order they were received.", indicate e-mail, but through the interview, both you and sometimes others make references to other answers, which blurs this impression somewhat. I realize that it's probably conducted through e-mail, and you've read all the answers before making yours (Another reason to clarify that interviewer and interview-object are the same person, as you in reality compete for the same customers (to a certain degree)), and thus are able to refer to the others. But there are some other examples of references to each other that come off as a bit weird, and the issue begs for some clarification.

Edit: OK, edited out some vile language and general acid directed towards the lack of replies on this, as I wasn't aware of the comments made on the content-item.

 

[Vault Dweller]

One thing that strikes me through this entire interview is how these games all appeal to different parts of the RPG-crowd.

That was the idea. At some point people were arguing which RPG sounds better, AoD or Eschalon. So I made a post, comparing features and showing that the games are very different and offer different things. Needless to say TBH is also a very different game. Then I had an idea to present and compare features and design preferences side-by-side, showing these games as parts of a complete diet. I would be interested to play all 3 (TBH, Eschalon, and DoP).

There are some thins in this interview that needs to be more clarified. While interviewing yourself in your own "media", is a bit on the edge of any "journalistic-ethic", or whatever it should be called...

I thought about it, but decided that I don't give a fuck. I answered this question in another post, so here is a copy:

"Yes, although I see it more as inviting 3 buddies over and discussing various things. If I ask you "Hey, what do you think about this Rome show?", do I have the right to offer you my opinion as well, thus answering my own question?

Anyway, the purpose of the interview was to present indie games in development side-by-side. Since AoD is a well know game in development, it would have been more silly not to include it, than to talk about some of its features."

In any case it should be clarified to a much larger extent than it is, that you Vault Dweller, who is asking the questions, and Vince D. Weller, who is interviewed, is the same person.

Why bother? And what would be the point anyway?

It is a bit shady to interview one self when you obviously have commercial interests, and personal gain from this. Again, I don't have any problems with it, but some might. And it might damage the Codex credibility (oxymoron, lol?) if it stays like it is right now.

*sigh* If I did an AoD interview, interviewing myself and asking myself the right questions, that would have been a different story. If you recall, I never did it, even when AoD was a completely unknown game and when I really needed some exposure. Now? I have three interview requests from sites much larger than the Codex, but I don't have time to do them at the moment.

And while you're at editing the interview, it should be further clarified whether you guys actually sat down and had a chat, in person or via some chat of sorts, or if the interview was conducted through e-mail.

Again, why? Who gives a fuck?

Because as it is now, the part where it says "The answers are posted in the order they were received.", indicate e-mail, but through the interview, both you and sometimes others make references to other answers, which blurs this impression somewhat. I realize that it's probably conducted through e-mail, and you've read all the answers before making yours (Another reason to clarify that interviewer and interview-object are the same person, as you in reality compete for the same customers (to a certain degree)), and thus are able to refer to the others. But there are some other examples of references to each other that come off as a bit weird, and the issue begs for some clarification.

We've set up a mailing list thingy (the credit goes to Jason) that allows us to communicate with all developers subscribed, discuss issues, offer advice, etc. That's how the interview was conducted, and that's why some people made references to other people's answers.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

That was the idea. At some point people were arguing which RPG sounds better, AoD or Eschalon. So I made a post, comparing features and showing that the games are very different and offer different things. Needless to say TBH is also a very different game. Then I had an idea to present and compare features and design preferences side-by-side, showing these games as parts of a complete diet. I would be interested to play all 3 (TBH, Eschalon, and DoP).

Yes, that's exactly what's making it so good. Now only if these petty problems could be addressed, it would be soo much better.

There are some thins in this interview that needs to be more clarified. While interviewing yourself in your own "media", is a bit on the edge of any "journalistic-ethic", or whatever it should be called...

I thought about it, but decided that I don't give a fuck. [/quote]
Hehe, I do realize that the Codex does it's own thing, and don't care that much for established "journalistic-ethics" (what is the proper word for this, god dammit?), but if it's not been brought up in your internal forum or whatever, some of the other staff-members might care. Off course you might already have discussed it, what do I know? Anyway, it's not like I think anyone else in the staff minds. IIRC, some staff members even requested you should pimp your game more through the Codex. And again, I don't mind this at all.

In any case it should be clarified to a much larger extent than it is, that you Vault Dweller, who is asking the questions, and Vince D. Weller, who is interviewed, is the same person.

Why bother? And what would be the point anyway?

The point would be to make it 100% clear. As it is now I think it could hurt your journalistic integrity (IIRC, you do view yourself as a journalist) as well as RPGCodex integrity. I think there should be no doubt, none what so ever, about you Vault Dweller and Vince D. Weller being the same person. Again, I am aware of this, and I am aware that most of the regulars know this, but people new to the Codex, and people new to AoD, might not. And mind you, you should well be aware of the general stupidity of the masses. Not everyone will add two and two and get the Vault Dweller = Vince D. Weller, connections. As you might remember, even some regulars were fooled when you first used the name in an interview. And you might ask, "why should I care about the retards"? Well, even stupid people might buy your game.

It is a bit shady to interview one self when you obviously have commercial interests, and personal gain from this. Again, I don't have any problems with it, but some might. And it might damage the Codex credibility (oxymoron, lol?) if it stays like it is right now.

*sigh* If I did an AoD interview, interviewing myself and asking myself the right questions, that would have been a different story. If you recall, I never did it, even when AoD was a completely unknown game and when I really needed some exposure. Now? I have three interview requests from sites much larger than the Codex, but I don't have time to do them at the moment.

Why the sigh? I'm just trying to explain my view. Would it have been better that I just went: "you interviewed yourself, that's bad!". As I wrote, I don't mind you doing this, and yes it'd been a hell of a different story if you just had interviewed yourself. The requests from other sites don't have anything to do with this matter, either. The problem with the interview as it is now, is as I said that it doesn't come of as clearly as it should be. Now if we take this one step further: since you published this stuff, what guarantee do we have that you're not making this look better for your behalf? What's to stop you from answering the questions so you come of in a better light than the others? If we're getting real black and white here, you are competing for the same audience. If you have this one guy who is dead set on buying one indie RPG. Only one. Then surely you'd want that guy to buy AoD over Eschalon? I'm not accusing you of doing this, in fact, I don't think you are doing it at all. But as the interview come of right now, it isn't entirely clear that you are interviewing yourself, nor how the interview was conducted. I'm just pointing this out, it's not like I'm insulting you mother or anything.

And while you're at editing the interview, it should be further clarified whether you guys actually sat down and had a chat, in person or via some chat of sorts, or if the interview was conducted through e-mail.

Again, why? Who gives a fuck?

For what it's worth, I do. And I'm quite sure there are others here as well, who reacted on this.

We've set up a mailing list thingy (the credit goes to Jason) that allows us to communicate with all developers subscribed, discuss issues, offer advice, etc. That's how the interview was conducted, and that's why some people made references to other people's answers.

Well, that's great. This should have been stated in the interview itself. I can't see any reason for not doing this now (other than stubborn principle and/or laziness, that is).

A far better solution would have been to have another staff member to publish and even conduct the interview (wouldn't have the same lash in the questions then, I admit), and clearly explain the situation and that you are interviewed as a game developer, not a staff member. It's too late for that now, but something to remember in the future. IIRC, all previous news mention of AoD were handled by Spazmo. Guess there were a reason for that, and that's the way it should have been handled now.

 

[Ladonna]

Yes VD.....your journalistic abilities are suffering. How dare you take part in the questionaire without creating a direction arrow for all the funny people from Quarter to three.....Do you want them to be confused!?!? Money back plz

Oh, the integrity! -1

 

[Vault Dweller]

The point would be to make it 100% clear.

The interview is about indie designs. As long as the answers are clear and the format of the interview is readable, we shouldn't have much to worry about.

As it is now I think it could hurt your journalistic integrity (IIRC, you do view yourself as a journalist) as well as RPGCodex integrity.

In what ways? Do explain. If I asked myself questions like "how awesome AoD is?", then your criticism would have been valid. The way it was done, the questions were merely discussion topics (setting, story, combat, quests).

I think there should be no doubt, none what so ever, about you Vault Dweller and Vince D. Weller being the same person. ... Not everyone will add two and two and get the Vault Dweller = Vince D. Weller, connections.

Still failing to see the importance.

Why the sigh? I'm just trying to explain my view.

Because of "it is a bit shady to interview one self when you obviously have commercial interests, and personal gain from this." This is more than a view, this is an accusation.

Now if we take this one step further: since you published this stuff, what guarantee do we have that you're not making this look better for your behalf?

What guarantee do you have that I'm not making shit up in other interviews, published by other sites? What's the difference?

What's to stop you from answering the questions so you come of in a better light than the others?

Did I?

If we're getting real black and white here, you are competing for the same audience. If you have this one guy who is dead set on buying one indie RPG. Only one.

It's a retarded example. Why would someone buy only one game? If BIS released 3 different games today: FO3, BG3, and IWD3, I would have bought all 3. Anyway, ok, let's go with your example. One guy who wants to buy one RPG. He has certain preferences, so he would buy a game that fits his preferences the most. A BG fan will buy The Broken Hourglass, regardless of my efforts to promote AoD because it's a very different game from what he likes to play. That was the point of the interview. These games are all different, they don't compete with each other.

For what it's worth, I do. And I'm quite sure there are others here as well, who reacted on this.

Do we have more people who feel the same way? Speak up and I will gladly cut my portion of the interview out, if it offends your sensibilities.

Well, that's great. This should have been stated in the interview itself. I can't see any reason for not doing this now (other than stubborn principle and/or laziness, that is).

The interview is about the 4 projects in development. Any other info (how it was done, who's this Vince D. Weller character, why Jason doesn't want to live with his mom, etc) is irrelevant.

A far better solution would have been to have another staff member to publish and even conduct the interview (wouldn't have the same lash in the questions then, I admit), and clearly explain the situation and that you are interviewed as a game developer, not a staff member.

I thought about that too, but I dislike playing these games and pretending that someone else did it. As for what I was being interviewed as... I'm both a game developer and a staff member. So, now every time I make a sarcastic remark in a newspost, you can go CONFLICT OF INTARESTS DETECTED!!!! VD trashed Oblivion because he wants to sell more AoD copies to the Elder Scrolls fanbase!

 

[Dementia Praecox]

OK, my turn to *sigh*. You are going a long way for just not clarifying your role in the interview here, mister.

The interview is about indie designs. As long as the answers are clear and the format of the interview is readable, we shouldn't have much to worry about.

Why not? I just showed this to a friend (who is now definitely buying both AoD and Eschalon, btw), and then asked him if he was aware of the fact that the interviewer and interviewee were the same. He went: "What, they are? I fount the name Vince D.Weller somewhat peculiar, but I didn't realize that." To be fair I just linked to the interview it self, and not the news post. And he said that it would be very obvious to someone with some knowledge of the game beforehand. While not exactly enough to call empirical evidence, it illustrated my point enough on my behalf to be sure of what I'm arguing here.

As it is now I think it could hurt your journalistic integrity (IIRC, you do view yourself as a journalist) as well as RPGCodex integrity.

In what ways? Do explain. If I asked myself questions like "how awesome AoD is?", then your criticism would have been valid. The way it was done, the questions were merely discussion topics (setting, story, combat, quests).

I thought I did. What you took as a personal attack below, were meant as an illustration on this.

I think there should be no doubt, none what so ever, about you Vault Dweller and Vince D. Weller being the same person. ... Not everyone will add two and two and get the Vault Dweller = Vince D. Weller, connections.

Still failing to see the importance.

Then I'll carry on till you see it.

Why the sigh? I'm just trying to explain my view.

Because of "it is a bit shady to interview one self when you obviously have commercial interests, and personal gain from this." This is more than a view, this is an accusation.

Well, it wasn't meant as one. In fact it is an objective truth. Because you do have commercial interests in the sense of that you are selling your game, and further: the more copies it sells, the more you will earn and thus being able to carry on with what you like. The more favorable mention AoD gets, the more you increase the chance of someone buying it. Sounds like personal gain to me.

Now if we take this one step further: since you published this stuff, what guarantee do we have that you're not making this look better for your behalf?

What guarantee do you have that I'm not making shit up in other interviews, published by other sites? What's the difference?

The difference is that you could have personal gain from doing so in this specific case. As shown above. And I didn't say making shit up either. There is quite a difference from making shit up, and bending the truth or manipulate the truth to your benefit. And I'll refrain the temptation to make a funny reference to the mass effect interview here. Whoops, guess I just did.

What's to stop you from answering the questions so you come of in a better light than the others?

Did I?

To my knowledge, no. And I didn't get that feeling either. Nor did I say that you did. In fact I explicitly stated:

I'm not accusing you of doing this, in fact, I don't think you are doing it at all.

If we're getting real black and white here, you are competing for the same audience. If you have this one guy who is dead set on buying one indie RPG. Only one.

It's a retarded example. Why would someone buy only one game? If BIS released 3 different games today: FO3, BG3, and IWD3, I would have bought all 3. Anyway, ok, let's go with your example. One guy who wants to buy one RPG. He has certain preferences, so he would buy a game that fits his preferences the most. A BG fan will buy The Broken Hourglass, regardless of my efforts to promote AoD because it's a very different game from what he likes to play. That was the point of the interview. These games are all different, they don't compete with each other.

While it might be retarded, it's still just an example. I can think of several reasons that one just have to choose one of the games, money being the most obvious one. Regardless, I'm not going to defend this example, it is rather naive. But your example is likewise somewhat retarded, because you are talking about one publisher/developer releasing three games for the same market at the same time. First off, that won't happen, and second that isn't the case here. You can't possibly say that Bethesda and Piranha Bytes don't compete for the same customers?

Do we have more people who feel the same way? Speak up and I will gladly cut my portion of the interview out, if it offends your sensibilities.

Christ goodbye, I've stated several times in both of my posts that I don't mind you doing this. Please don't be daft. What I do mind, and what I quite humbly pointed out (if I may say so), is that it doesn't come off as clearly as it should, that Vault Dweller and Vince D. Weller are the same person. I'm not on some personal crusade to make The Codex stop posting AoD news or content, and please don't try to make it look like I am.

The interview is about the 4 projects in development. Any other info (how it was done, who's this Vince D. Weller character, why Jason doesn't want to live with his mom, etc) is irrelevant. [/qoute]
I just requested a clarification on your role, that is all. I did not request whatever unrelated info to the case, and I did not request an all American retard-disclaimer (IE, hot content on the coffee cup). A simple sentence would suffice. A simple clarification.

A far better solution would have been to have another staff member to publish and even conduct the interview (wouldn't have the same lash in the questions then, I admit), and clearly explain the situation and that you are interviewed as a game developer, not a staff member.

I thought about that too, but I dislike playing these games and pretending that someone else did it. As for what I was being interviewed as... I'm both a game developer and a staff member. So, now every time I make a sarcastic remark in a newspost, you can go CONFLICT OF INTARESTS DETECTED!!!! VD trashed Oblivion because he wants to sell more AoD copies to the Elder Scrolls fanbase!

Well, I was so verbose about the matter just to avoid the "CONFLICT OF INTARESTS DETECTED!!!!", remark, but I guess I wasn't verbose enough. And I'd like to point out, once again, that I'm not on a personal crusade to remove you from the RPGCodex staff or banning news nor content about AoD on the Codex, or whatever other straw man you might conjure up against me. I just made a request for some simple clarification, so that the Codex I love, might look more professional in the eyes of outsiders. Nothing more.

 

[FrancoTAU]

How about you all stop being overly critical asses and just comment on the actual content of the interview? He was a moderator in a roundtable discussion. It's not unheard for the moderator to throw his two cents in.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

How about you all stop being overly critical asses and just comment on the actual content of the interview? He was a moderator in a roundtable discussion. It's not unheard for the moderator to throw his two cents in.

How about you shutting the hell up? I wrote two paragraphs of praise before raising criticism, and it's a pretty damn warranted criticism too. I wasn't rude, and I most certainly wasn't being an "overly critical ass". Nice going on including that "you all", btw, as I am the only one who have criticised jack.

Edit: make that four paragraphs, and if you don't see the holy irony batman in that post of yours, then I suggest you take a nosedive into the dictionary and educate yourself.

 

[The Rambling Sage]

I do not want to seem overly negative, but so far it looks like our beloved genre is really dead. With all due respect for the people involved in those projects, we have been crying for God knows how long about the genre being stagnant, cliche ridden, et al. And then when some admirable and decided group appear and makes plans for an independent RPG the best thing three out of four can come with is the same old FantasyLand crap? Yes, i know, someone will say "It's not just another FantasyLand, this one has a victorious evil army!" but that changes not that it is just FantasyLand vN.N.N+1.

The genre is finished, and we all know that. This is the kind of situation where anything goes and maybe a difference can be made, maybe a trend be set, maybe someone somewhere will see that it needs not to be the same old shit with less options and more colors. I would need a scientific calculator to know how many Fantasy RPGs are out there, both of the codex-fearing and unredeemable heretic kinds. I could meassure the exact number of not fantasy RPGs with both hands. If i find myself short, it will not be by much.

Someone has the chance and skill to try and bring life to the genre, without the prison of suits and corporate interests, and it is the same old shit with different colours, names, and magick system? Then we ask why has our beloved genre come to this. It is so fucking traped in it's own parody it is chocking itself to death. And after bitching for years about how every fucking RPGish game announced is just another FantasyLand one, we sing praises to... wait for it... more FantasyLand ones!

So far for being consequent.

The only promising, original, interesting one is AoD, but then VD is God and we all know it, and he knows it, so i will leave the insense and adoration for another time. I will even buy the game. That speaks for itself.

Now stone me to death at your colective discretion.

 

[Higher Game]

I want to see fantasy/sci fi hybrid games. I think it was so cool and quirky how the later Wizardry titles did that, and I like steampunk, too. Both pure fantasy and pure futurism have gotten dull to me now.

 

[Vault Dweller]

OK, my turn to *sigh*. You are going a long way for just not clarifying your role in the interview here, mister.

What can I say? I like to argue, and you are the only game in town at the moment.

Why not? I just showed this to a friend (who is now definitely buying both AoD and Eschalon, btw), and then asked him if he was aware of the fact that the interviewer and interviewee were the same.

Why? Does it matter? Did you like the AoD interview at RPG Vault? Well, let's say that I was the interviewer (for the record, I wasn't). What does this change? Hint: Absolutely fucking nothing. You read interviews to learn more about the subjects. Who asked the questions is irrelevant. It could be me, it could be someone else. As long as questions are "normal", there is no problem.

Well, it wasn't meant as one. In fact it is an objective truth. Because you do have commercial interests in the sense of that you are selling your game, and further: the more copies it sells, the more you will earn and thus being able to carry on with what you like. The more favorable mention AoD gets, the more you increase the chance of someone buying it. Sounds like personal gain to me.

And? It's not like I posted an AoD preview, praising the game, without making it clear that I'm the developer. By your logic, I should immediately step down as the site's admin, because - let's face it - I can use my position for personal gains.

The difference is that you could have personal gain from doing so in this specific case. As shown above.

Did it do anything to put down other developers and criticize their games/ideas? Any hidden negativity, sarcastic responses, attempts to show that my game is better than the three games combined? Hopefully, the answer is no, in which case, we can finally close this case.

But your example is likewise somewhat retarded, because you are talking about one publisher/developer releasing three games for the same market at the same time.

All 3 games are (would have been) very different, are they not?

You can't possibly say that Bethesda and Piranha Bytes don't compete for the same customers?

They do, but that's not the case with the four games presented in the interview. They all happened to be very different. There is a huge fucking difference between TBH and AoD. People will either get both or whatever fits their preferences. The TB/RT, party/no party, magic/no magic, high fantasy/post-apoc low magic fantasy differences would put players into the opposite camps, so I don't think you have a point there.

I just requested a clarification on your role, that is all.

I see no reasons to do so. Such clarifications won't change anything (i.e. people won't go "Ah, now it makes sense!"), so why bother?

I just made a request for some simple clarification, so that the Codex I love, might look more professional in the eyes of outsiders. Nothing more.

I'm afraid I'm not very professional. Hopefully when I retire from this glamorous lifestyle, things would improve.

 

[Hazelnut]

I do not want to seem overly negative, but so far it looks like our beloved genre is really dead. With all due respect for the people involved in those projects, we have been crying for God knows how long about the genre being stagnant, cliche ridden, et al. And then when some admirable and decided group appear and makes plans for an independent RPG the best thing three out of four can come with is the same old FantasyLand crap? Yes, i know, someone will say "It's not just another FantasyLand, this one has a victorious evil army!" but that changes not that it is just FantasyLand vN.N.N+1.

I'll happily take n+1 Fantasyland RPGs that are actually good quality role-playing games. Serve me up the cliche's with a large helping of intelligent dialogue, choices & consequences and challenging (but not to the reflexes) gameplay and I'll grin from ear to ear.

Just because the Fantasy setting has been done to death in excruciating bloom, doesn't mean it can no longer provide us any RPG goodness. I think that given the barren times we are living through, that signing the genre's death warrant over setting is akin to pissing directly into the desert sands. By all means grumble that we're not in a bountiful land of plenty and can pick and choose the ripest fruits at a whim, but don't forget survival while your at it.

(disclaimer: any confusion or mixed metapors in this post can be attrubuted to the flu that seems to have turned my brain into jellyfied cat litter)

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yep, there is nothing wrong with fantasy, and Prelude to Darkness is a fine example of a well done fantasy game with magic and monsters.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

What can I say? I like to argue, and you are the only game in town at the moment.

So you're basically saying you're arguing just for the sake of the argument?

Why not? I just showed this to a friend (who is now definitely buying both AoD and Eschalon, btw), and then asked him if he was aware of the fact that the interviewer and interviewee were the same.

Why? Does it matter? Did you like the AoD interview at RPG Vault? Well, let's say that I was the interviewer (for the record, I wasn't). What does this change? Hint: Absolutely fucking nothing.

I don't see how this is related to my request for clarification of your role in the interview. I merely presented my view, which was that the Codex integrity would benefit form having your role in that interview more clearly defined.

You read interviews to learn more about the subjects. Who asked the questions is irrelevant. It could be me, it could be someone else. As long as questions are "normal", there is no problem.

It's not irrelevant for the reader to know that the interviewer and interviewee is the same. Which, after all, is the case here. Yes, I see there is no inherent problem with that interview as it is. But I also see that your two roles in that interview isn't clear enough. Which is the point I'm trying to make.

Well, it wasn't meant as one. In fact it is an objective truth. Because you do have commercial interests in the sense of that you are selling your game, and further: the more copies it sells, the more you will earn and thus being able to carry on with what you like. The more favorable mention AoD gets, the more you increase the chance of someone buying it. Sounds like personal gain to me.

And? It's not like I posted an AoD preview, praising the game, without making it clear that I'm the developer. By your logic, I should immediately step down as the site's admin, because - let's face it - I can use my position for personal gains.

You are taking my examples, which I used to illustrate that blurring your two roles is a bad thing, and presenting them as the main criticism of the interview. Further you are taking this personally, which you shouldn't. I think you manage those roles quite well. At least until this interview. The only thing I'm missing here is a clarification of your two roles, so there will be no misunderstandings, and so that no one else can make the arguments you are putting in my mouth, and be somewhat correct. I was just trying to be helpful, for crying out loud.

Did it do anything to put down other developers and criticize their games/ideas? Any hidden negativity, sarcastic responses, attempts to show that my game is better than the three games combined? Hopefully, the answer is no, in which case, we can finally close this case.

The answer is no, and it has been no, right from the beginning. Can't you see that this is beside the point? Again, I just requested that you clarify your Janus-nature in this. I didn't accuse you of shit-talking the other games. I wrote the following as an example (which you requested, because you saw no problems in not clarifying your two roles in the interview), and not as an accusation:

Now if we take this one step further: since you published this stuff, what guarantee do we have that you're not making this look better for your behalf? What's to stop you from answering the questions so you come of in a better light than the others? If we're getting real black and white here, you are competing for the same audience.

If you notice that "Now if we take this one step further"-part, that's an indication of me moving away form my argument towards an example to illustrate the problem in you not being willing to clarify your two roles in this interview. And please do note that this is a quote from my second reply, and not another attack on your persona.

But your example is likewise somewhat retarded, because you are talking about one publisher/developer releasing three games for the same market at the same time.

All 3 games are (would have been) very different, are they not?

Yes, they are different. But it is still a bad example.

You can't possibly say that Bethesda and Piranha Bytes don't compete for the same customers?

They do, but that's not the case with the four games presented in the interview. They all happened to be very different. There is a huge fucking difference between TBH and AoD. People will either get both or whatever fits their preferences. The TB/RT, party/no party, magic/no magic, high fantasy/post-apoc low magic fantasy differences would put players into the opposite camps, so I don't think you have a point there.

I wasn't talking about the hardcore RPG-crowd here. I was referring to that average Joe on the street who don't necessarily know more than that he want just an RPG to play. Not so much what type. Those guys exist, and with the rather broad publicity you're getting now, just face it, there are going to be a rather large percentage of those guys buying your game. Anyway, this was just an example, which was a bad and naive one from the start, so I'll give you that one.

I just requested a clarification on your role, that is all.

I see no reasons to do so. Such clarifications won't change anything (i.e. people won't go "Ah, now it makes sense!"), so why bother?

Ah, now we're getting to the core. In my humble opinion, it would change lots. First of all, you'll clarify your two roles for future readers. Further you'll show that you are aware of your two roles, and that you are care about making sure that the readers are aware of this too (which you seemingly have cared about, until now). You'll show that you care about the public opinion of the Codex (which you have stated again and again on other forums, but that was perhaps just arguing for the sake of the argument as well?). And lastly you'll show that you are able to take (what I view as) constructive criticism seriously, and not in a personal way. There is no shame in that.

I'm afraid I'm not very professional. Hopefully when I retire from this glamorous lifestyle, things would improve.

Don't be daft. The Codex is the most insightful and knowledgeable place for RPGs on the net. It is the best source for indie RPG-related news and content. No use in denying that. RPGWatch might update faster and more often, but anything that matters end up here anyway. Besides RPGCodex has far better content (like this very interview) and far cooler style. A very big portion of this can be credited to you, personally, and I respect you very much for that. I don't try to elevate you (and the Codex) to something you are not, but it's my personal opinion that this site is far more professional, not necessarily in the traditional sense of the word, than the likes of IGN or Gamespot. Now this is not me trying to suck the cock of neither you, VD, nor any other staff member of this site. It's me getting pissed at you, VD, for being so god damn stubborn. I've grown very fond of this site during the four years I've been reading it, and I truly do care about what people think about it. I know for a fact that you, VD, do this too (unless you've been talking out of your ass on all the crusades you've had on other forums (which I don't think you were, btw)), so it annoys me to no end that you can't take that small criticism for what it was (me requesting some simple clarification), and be done with it.

That being said, I do request some input form other admins on this site. Is this just me being silly, or do I have a point and VD is just being stubborn as a mule? As I just stated on #Fallout: I've spent too much time on this bullshit too not have it noticed. Voice your opinions, dammit.

 

[Hazelnut]

Okay DP, although I'm no admin, here's my take... I can see both sides of the issue and in my current flu-addled state can't see to care either way. So, your posts have been read by someone other than VD - take heart in that at least. Oh, and wow you type a hell of a lot.

:D

(bein' helpful is my game hehe)

 

[Vault Dweller]

So you're basically saying you're arguing just for the sake of the argument?

That and to keep terrorists from winning.

Why not? I just showed this to a friend (who is now definitely buying both AoD and Eschalon, btw), and then asked him if he was aware of the fact that the interviewer and interviewee were the same.

Why? Does it matter? Did you like the AoD interview at RPG Vault? Well, let's say that I was the interviewer (for the record, I wasn't). What does this change? Hint: Absolutely fucking nothing.

I don't see how this is related to my request for clarification of your role in the interview. I merely presented my view, which was that the Codex integrity would benefit form having your role in that interview more clearly defined.

Like I said, I don't see how this issue affects the Codex integrity or credibility. So far, you've failed to explain that.

It's not irrelevant for the reader to know that the interviewer and interviewee is the same. Which, after all, is the case here. Yes, I see there is no inherent problem with that interview as it is. But I also see that your two roles in that interview isn't clear enough. Which is the point I'm trying to make.

I agree, they are not. What I can't understand is why that's a problem? Again, if the questions were loaded, presenting other projects in a negative light, well, that would have been a different matter, requiring clarification, but since the questions are basically topics...

Further you are taking this personally, which you shouldn't.

I am?

I think you manage those roles quite well. At least until this interview. The only thing I'm missing here is a clarification of your two roles, so there will be no misunderstandings, and so that no one else can make the arguments you are putting in my mouth, and be somewhat correct. I was just trying to be helpful, for crying out loud.

Thanks. Appreciate your efforts and all that. Now explain why I mismanaged my roles in this interview and why a clarification must be made immediately (other than "my friend was confused"), and I'll gladly do so.

I wasn't talking about the hardcore RPG-crowd here. I was referring to that average Joe on the street who don't necessarily know more than that he want just an RPG to play.

In which case, the answer is simple: Oblivion - the best RPG money can buy!

Anyway, this was just an example, which was a bad and naive one from the start, so I'll give you that one.

Thou art a scholar and a gentleman.

Ah, now we're getting to the core. In my humble opinion, it would change lots. First of all, you'll clarify your two roles for future readers. Further you'll show that you are aware of your two roles, and that you are care about making sure that the readers are aware of this too (which you seemingly have cared about, until now). You'll show that you care about the public opinion of the Codex (which you have stated again and again on other forums, but that was perhaps just arguing for the sake of the argument as well?). And lastly you'll show that you are able to take (what I view as) constructive criticism seriously, and not in a personal way. There is no shame in that.

I see. Well, sounds awesome. Now, why again are we doing all that? My questions are:

1. Why the readers should give a damn about my many names and roles? Considering the nature of the interview, this info is irrelevant. I might as well state my position on abortion and the war in Iraq. Hey, the readers have a right to know these things!

2. How did the public image of this fine institution suffer from the lack of the clarification and all the uncertainty?

3. Why do you think that agreeing with you is the only way to take your criticism seriously? What if I do take it seriously (which is why I'm arguing with you, btw), but disagree with your points? Does that make me a bad person?

The Codex is the most insightful and knowledgeable place for RPGs on the net. It is the best source for indie RPG-related news and content. No use in denying that.

Er? Did I deny it? No. Neither did I take credit for all the awesomness that is the Codex. I'm planning to step down in the near future - without leaving the forums, of course, and that's what I meant.

It's me getting pissed at you, VD, for being so god damn stubborn.

I love you too, sweetie.

I've grown very fond of this site during the four years I've been reading it, and I truly do care about what people think about it. I know for a fact that you, VD, do this too (unless you've been talking out of your ass on all the crusades you've had on other forums (which I don't think you were, btw)), so it annoys me to no end that you can't take that small criticism for what it was (me requesting some simple clarification), and be done with it.

I simply don't see the point (or the harm caused by the interview without clarification). I can take your or anyone else's criticism. If you've been reading the site for 4 years, you should know at least that much. Taking criticism and agreeing with criticism are two different things though.

That being said, I do request some input form other admins on this site. Is this just me being silly, or do I have a point and VD is just being stubborn as a mule? As I just stated on #Fallout: I've spent too much time on this bullshit too not have it noticed. Voice your opinions, dammit.

I'll let other admins know of this crisis situation.

 

[merry andrew]

Codex integrity

LOL

 

[Jason]

I simply don't see the point (or the harm caused by the interview without clarification).

The point/harm is that interviewing yourself puts a bad taste in readers' mouths, especially if they find this out afterwards. It looks shady. My first reaction was the same as LCJr's ("You interviewed yourself?"). Now if I wasn't a regular here, I'd think "what a douchebag" and probably not bother coming back if this was my first experience with the site. While the Codex doesn't exist to cater to everyone's needs, it also doesn't need to chase away reasonable readers who expect some degree of professionalism when it comes to things like interviews and reviews. Humor jokes are one thing, self-interviews are another.

I'm not saying you should go back and cut or edit anything at this point, just that DP's not the only one having these thoughts.

 

[merry andrew]

While the Codex doesn't exist to cater to everyone's needs, it also doesn't need to chase away reasonable readers who expect some degree of professionalism when it comes to things like interviews and reviews.

Shouldn't "reasonable readers" be able to recognize the nature of the interview and easily assess any bias in the questions?

 

[Jason]

Reasonable readers shouldn't need to analyze an interview for potential bias and normally wouldn't expect that the interviewer and interviewee are one and the same.

 

[merry andrew]

Reasonable readers shouldn't need to analyze an interview for potential bias

They shouldn't need to, they should want to. If the reader isn't analyzing as they read, what makes them so reasonable?

and normally wouldn't expect that the interviewer and interviewee are one and the same.

This isn't a typical industry interview... something I'd assume a reasonable reader would almost instantly be able to determine from the first few sentences:

Here is an overview (and a handy reference guide) of the indie "industry": who does what, how, and why, and what do these people have to offer. The answers are posted in the order they were received.

 

[HardCode]

Steven: The quest system in Depths of Peril is very dynamic. Each game has different quests because they are generated based on the actions of the player, the other covenants, and the world itself. Quests actually have consequences. You can fail quests and quests can generate other quests based on the actions that everyone takes. So in other words, every game plays a little differently because different events happen and your choices actually matter.

This sounds very interesting.

 

[Zomg]

For plebiscite purposes, it did occur to me while reading it that you should have clarified roles. On the other hand, I was glad to see several questions which AoD was ill-suited for, like the party stuff TBH could strut with, which helped it not look like a bunch of questions designed to showcase AoD.