Our indie interview

[Vault Dweller]

Fixed.

Anyway, my 2 cents on the situation. I wanted to make an interesting, well-rounded interview, showing different design ideas and what people should expect from indie developers. It was about the indie industry than about presenting any particular game, including AoD, which is a well known project at this point. Believe it or not, I cared more about giving you something interesting and complete to read than about promoting my game in a "tacky" way.

Since some objections have been raised, I removed anything related to AoD from the interview. My apologies to those who may have been offended.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Isn't that a bit too high school drama, VD? If you wanted to appease someone or concede a point all you needed to do was to clarify you were Vince in the interview - there was no need to rub out the AoD bits from the interview, specially since it's likely an interesting game for indie gamers and a good thing for the scene itself.

 

[puppyonastik]

VD, I am deeply offended by the abuse of your admin powers to silence the opinions Mr. Weller. I must insist that you undo this vile act immediately. Have you no integrity?

 

[MountainWest]

What a silly thing to do. Especially considering that you've just stated that you didn't take D.P.s criticism personally.

Regarding your 2 cents, I'm pretty sure no-one took the interview as you trying to promote AoD "in a tacky way". The criticism - while I couldn't care less - was that it would have been good manner to make it clear that you where both the interviewer and the interviewe (and no, I've no idea if those really are english words, or words at all for that matter). And since you're obviously not a daft person I can't see how you could've interpreted it as anything else.

 

[EliotW]

Depths of Peril sounds somewhat comparable to King of Dragon Pass. Not a bad thing at all.

 

[MacBone]

Crap, VD, I wish you had waited a little longer before erasing the AoD portion of the interview. Any chance you could post the cut responses elsewhere?

 

[Niektory]

Now that was unexpected. VD, you overreacted and you know that.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Isn't that a bit too high school drama, VD? If you wanted to appease someone or concede a point all you needed to do was to clarify you were Vince in the interview - there was no need to rub out the AoD bits from the interview, specially since it's likely an interesting game for indie gamers and a good thing for the scene itself.

It's not about appeasing people or conceding points, RP. I did something that some people thought was wrong or tacky, as baby arm put it. I didn't expect such a reaction, as I saw the situation differently, but I had to deal with it somehow. In this particular case, I was either right (or at least not wrong), in which case no action was required, or wrong, in which case there was only one way to fix it.

Clarifying wouldn't have changed anything.

Crap, VD, I wish you had waited a little longer before erasing the AoD portion of the interview. Any chance you could post the cut responses elsewhere?

Not this time. NMA posted some AoD stuff in their newspost.
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35379

 

[almondblight]

Isn't that a bit too high school drama, VD? If you wanted to appease someone or concede a point all you needed to do was to clarify you were Vince in the interview - there was no need to rub out the AoD bits from the interview, specially since it's likely an interesting game for indie gamers and a good thing for the scene itself.

 

[Ladonna]

You people are pussies. I can't believe that some of you gave a shit whether he was answering those questions himself or not. Get a fucking life.

As for integrity...Sorry, busy laughing here.

Possibly the most pathetic, retarded, emo whining I have read here in a long while. Bear in mind KC and Volourn are nowhere to be seen....

If the game is shit, yeah go for the throat. If its hyped to hell and back, no mercy. But this? I think some of you integrity masters need to go on a holiday or something.

 

[Stark]

Internet Drama!

Seriously, people who frequent this site knows who VD is. If you leave out the interview section on AoD, it makes the indie interview less complete as a result.

(now if you put it back, be prepared for 'flip-flop' jokes)

 

[The Rambling Sage]

Regarding your 2 cents, I'm pretty sure no-one took the interview as you trying to promote AoD "in a tacky way". The criticism - while I couldn't care less - was that it would have been good manner to make it clear that you where both the interviewer and the interviewe (and no, I've no idea if those really are english words, or words at all for that matter). And since you're obviously not a daft person I can't see how you could've interpreted it as anything else.

As far as i know, VD's game is made with a given target in mind. Those who belong to such target, or targets to be wider in the definition, already know who VD is and wich other aliases he has. So, if someone is confused, he is not inside the target population to begin with, and as such he will not be confused - as he has not a the slightest idea that interviewer and interviewed are the same one individual nor has he a reason to believe so, to believe not so, or to even think about the possibility. If that someone becomes interested in the game/scene and research the topic as a result of such interest, he will clear this confussion quite fast, in the not very probable scenario where he was confussed, to begin with, about something he has not motives, because of his ignorance on the topic, to become confused in the first place.

Remember this is a Codex Interview. If you are in the Codex, you know who he is. If you do not, you will in around ten seconds. It is not rocket science.

So the criticism is quite stupid. But then this is my interpretation of the thingy going here, and as such VD's motives, objectives, and posture could have been entirely different. Maybe he has a secret agenda of media manipulation. Maybe he is an illuminati pursuing world domination through a campaign of dissinformation built around AoD.

I'll stand on the "it was a Codex Interview" theory until the other ones are prooven.

 

[MountainWest]

Regarding your 2 cents, I'm pretty sure no-one took the interview as you trying to promote AoD "in a tacky way". The criticism - while I couldn't care less - was that it would have been good manner to make it clear that you where both the interviewer and the interviewe (and no, I've no idea if those really are english words, or words at all for that matter). And since you're obviously not a daft person I can't see how you could've interpreted it as anything else.

As far as i know, VD's game is made with a given target in mind. Those who belong to such target, or targets to be wider in the definition, already know who VD is and wich other aliases he has. So, if someone is confused, he is not inside the target population to begin with, and as such he will not be confused - as he has not a the slightest idea that interviewer and interviewed are the same one individual nor has he a reason to believe so, to believe not so, or to even think about the possibility. If that someone becomes interested in the game/scene and research the topic as a result of such interest, he will clear this confussion quite fast, in the not very probable scenario where he was confussed, to begin with, about something he has not motives, because of his ignorance on the topic, to become confused in the first place.

Remember this is a Codex Interview. If you are in the Codex, you know who he is. If you do not, you will in around ten seconds. It is not rocket science.

So the criticism is quite stupid. But then this is my interpretation of the thingy going here, and as such VD's motives, objectives, and posture could have been entirely different. Maybe he has a secret agenda of media manipulation. Maybe he is an illuminati pursuing world domination through a campaign of dissinformation built around AoD.

I'll stand on the "it was a Codex Interview" theory until the other ones are prooven.

As you could clearly make out of my "I couldn't care less"-comment, I personally didn't agree with the criticism, nor did I condemn it. I was and I am indifferent to it. But! The criticism - over-blown as it might've been - did not stem from anyone thinking VD was secretly promoting his own game, which seemed to be what VD was thinking with his 2 cents comment. It stemmed from what some people regarded as bad manners in interviewing oneself without stating that that in fact was the case, and that regardless of underlying motives.

A very easy way to have solved this problem would have been to 1) Dismiss the criticism as silly. 2) Write a line at the start of the interview, saying that VD and Vince is the same person. I wouldn't have cared either way. But to edit out all AoD related material from the interview was, in my opinion, very silly - even more so than the criticism. And I honestly can't see the reasoning behind doing so, aside from hurt feelings.

As for your confused ramblings about non-existant or only temporary confusion, which did leave me a tad confused: someone did raise the point that not stating that the interviewer and the interviewed (or interviewe, as is the word I invented in my last post) could make the Codex look bad. As in "I know VD and Vince is the same person, but I still think those silly elitists at the Codex conducts in bad manners, lolz.". How, why or if they really would do so (they being the non-codex members), I don't know. And I don't care.

 

[The Rambling Sage]

Blah Blah, in a not condescending "Blah Blah" way.

I knew you were not on the side of (or against) the criticism, and i only quoted you because you had given a good overview of the discussion. I was making some considerations on the criticism topic itself, not on yourself or your posture about the criticism. The point being: Since it is a Codex interview for Codex people, and since VD himself already explained it was more of a friendly chat about the indy scene, the "good manners" point is, in itself, pointless. And the Codex never claimed to have any kind of ethic, much less a professional one.

And then worse manners would have been to act like everyone around here was a retard and state "VD is interviewing himself" when every single one around here already knew that.

That being already obvious, i pointed to the idiocy of talking about bad manners in a friendly, not professional interview. And bad manners to whom? Professional ethics have a reason to be: In this particular case, it would be only bad manners if the interview were not directed to people that already knew it is the same person, already knew everything about the game, and already knew it was a friendly interview. Since it is a Codex Interview for Codexites, that does not apply. I covered the confussion to explain why, on this case, to talk about professional ethics (or more so, implied "professional manners") is a stupid thing to do.

They are just bitching because they can and casually have fingers and a keyboard. There is no logic in their claims, and that is why i analized the possible logic behind the claim. They take a rule (bad/good manners as applied to an interview) outside of context and then apply it as being universal, without any understanding of why the rule exist in the first place. That, the possible motives behind the rule as it could be applied to this particular case, i explained, and then explained why they were not applyable, or however it is written.

Sorry if it was unclear. I tend to ramble and turn very simple points into stupidly cryptic expositions.

To simplify: They are acting like idiots.

Exposed in a stupidly cryptic way.

 

[aries202]

As I read the interview, it is really just a bunch (4) indie developers that sat down one afternoon an discussed things - over the internet. And kind of chattet about what they do, how they do it, and why they do it - and by it, I mean developing indie games Nothing else, Nothing more.

And the interview itself is really only relevant to the regulars here at the codex, imo.

 

[MountainWest]

And the interview itself is really only relevant to the regulars here at the codex, imo.

I hope you're wrong for all of those four developers sake. And mine, since what you're suggesting would mean that I'd probably never see a sequel to any of the games.

Things

Ok. I just saw that you quoted me and then went on about criticism. Obviously I misinterpreted what you were saying, or at whom you were directing it.

 

[Calis]

I think cutting out the Vince D. Weller responses from the interview was unnecessary. While I agree with VD's initial assessment that the piece's content didn't really leave any kind of conflict-of-interest aftertaste, I don't really see the problem with clarifying at the start by saying "Yes, Vault Dweller and Vince D. Weller are one and the same person", either. Why not put the entire "we set up a mailing list, and VD/VinceD are one and the same" in a little paragraph at the start?
I'd say the current solution is just about the worst one; the answers from indie-dev-VD are just as valuable as those from the other three, no matter who's asking the questions.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Well, this certainly took a turn for the worse. This was never my intention, nor was it Baby Arms (that's what I gather from his posts, anyway.)
In an effort to make this post more readable, and not so fucking verbose, I'll only adress VD in this one.

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

Baby Arm did a better job on the visuals there, when the said: "The point/harm is that interviewing yourself puts a bad taste in readers' mouths, especially if they find this out afterwards. It looks shady". The bolded part here is the only inherent problem I see, and that should have been pretty fucking clear from the beginning. The part in italics could easily is only a problem if this isn't justified in a proper way. Now my point from the beginning was that a good breath mint would have been a sentence or two explaining, just as you've done in this thread, why you decided to include your game in this article. Then there would be no problem and everyone would be satisfied.

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...

As I stated in my first post, my concerns weren't directed at The Codex regulars, but at new readers. And contrary to popular belief, exemplified by a certain rambler in this thread, the Codex has a shitload of non-regulars. This isn't something I pull out of my ass, it's simple math based on the numbers Dark Underlord presented in that NMA-feud. Again allow me to cite Baby Arm, as he does a better job at wording it (but at the same time, offended VD enough to get all drama queen on us):

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".

Now if the point I've been nagging about since the beginning had been addressed, this wouldn't be a problem.

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

I am?

Yes, which you since have proved by taking down the AoD-parts in the interview.

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 wish you just had done what I requested, rather that being childish, as you are now (in taking the AoD-bits out, not by this exact reply).

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!

You are aware of the fact that there exist people in between Halo-kid, and the hardcore Codex regular, right? Shades of gray.

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!

I've answered this by now, I think.

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

Both Baby Arm and me has answered this by now.

3. Why do you think that agreeing with you is the only way to take your criticism seriously?

Because I think my criticism are quite objective, and personally see agreeing as the only way to take it seriously.

What if I do take it seriously (which is why I'm arguing with you, btw), but disagree with your points?

Then I'll keep on explaining in the best possible way I can, until you agree with what I view as an objective truth.

Does that make me a bad person?

It makes you stubborn.

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.

Please allow me to *sigh*. No you didn't deny it. Bad wording on my side, got a bit carried away, and honestly, that should have been obvious. If i were to follow that path, I could ask "Er? Did I say you've taken credit for all the awesomeness that is the Codex?", but I won't. So don't bother to make a straw man funny remark of it either.

I'm planning to step down in the near future - without leaving the forums, of course, and that's what I meant.

That is a big shame, but off course a decision I both respect and understand. I wasn't aware of that being what you referred to, though. You place a heavy burden on the other staff-members then. Perhaps Fez will start to justify his admin powers, and perhaps you'll even recruit some more goons to take over for you.

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.

Please allow me to inform you that the reason I've weighed my words in my replies to such a degree that I have (and all the emo-remarks directed towards me in the thread indicate that it shines through), just because I've been following you these four years. I've been quite aware of the danger of you just pulling out the AoD-parts out of the Interview, which was something I most certainly didn't want. Your comments directed to me through this thread proved this suspicion, and it just raised my alertness. This is why I've expressed my self this carefully and as verbose. You are inclined to do these irrational actions, you have shown that in the past. Then came Baby Arm along, and with one snappy remark, all my efforts were in vain.

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

That's your words, and you are the one acting like it is one, despite all the funny remarks in this reply.

Isn't that a bit too high school drama, VD? If you wanted to appease someone or concede a point all you needed to do was to clarify you were Vince in the interview - there was no need to rub out the AoD bits from the interview, specially since it's likely an interesting game for indie gamers and a good thing for the scene itself.

It's not about appeasing people or conceding points, RP. I did something that some people thought was wrong or tacky, as baby arm put it. I didn't expect such a reaction, as I saw the situation differently, but I had to deal with it somehow. In this particular case, I was either right (or at least not wrong), in which case no action was required, or wrong, in which case there was only one way to fix it.

Clarifying wouldn't have changed anything.

You're right in the sense that the ones already offended probably won't come back. But changing it will make all those average people, (who I've been talking about all along) that don't monitor RPGwatch or NMA or The Codex 24/7 hitting F5 every ten seconds, not be offended by it. And besides, it's not like it's just the regulars who dig in the Codex-archives. Further changing it could have shown that you didn't take all of this personally, and are able to handle some constructive criticism (whitch this is, dammit). If anything, this "drama", could lead to increased traffic, and changing the interview might even warrant and update on sites like RPGWatch or NMA. If they didn't update, you could even send a request for them to do so. Contrary to what you seemingly believe, things can be undone on the Internet. To a certain degree, at least.

For closure let me just say that I hope you put the AoD-parts up, they were both informative and contributed to the interview as a whole. Your intentions for this has been clear for all the regulars, including me, since the beginning. And it wasn't them I was worried about, which also should have been clear since the beginning. And lastly another *sigh* and: You are going a long way for just not clarifying your role in the interview here, mister.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

As one of the shades of grey mentioned, I want to ask for the AoD part back, I didn't have time to read it all when it was still there. I don't see a problem with self interviewing (as the space allocated and the nature of questions seemed unbiased). But yes, it would be nice to state that Vaultdweller initiated the interview.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I see that we have no choice but to talk about it until the thread is 10-page long. No, my feelings weren't hurt. No, I didn't take it personally, taking my toys and going home. No, it wasn't yet another internet drama.

[Commander Shepard] THEN WHAT WAS IT, GODDAMNIT! *grabs the collar* [/]

Sermon # 142: 10 easy steps to tell that you are wrong.

I'm pretty sure that most people here have been in a situation where you think that you are doing the right thing (or at least not doing anything wrong), yet you aren't. I assume that you learned to doubt yourself (in a good way) and look for other then "i KNOW that I'm right so I must be right" ways to confirm that you are on the right path.

If you one of those "I'm always right" people, please report to the nearest firing squad to be taken outside and shot.

Anyway, that's where people who surround us come in. When in doubt, you ask people whom you respect for their opinions, and if they say that you are wrong, well, then it's time to rethink the situation because there is a very good chance that you *are* wrong.

I was surprised at Dementia's strong reaction, but his criticism was "gentle". Still, Dementia's ok in my books, so I couldn't dismiss his points entirely, and since he appealed to other staff members, I made a post in the staff forum, drawing everyone's attention to this situation. To be perfectly honest, I expected people to reassure me that Dementia's overreacting and the interview is fine. Then baby arm, whom I respect quite a lot, hit me with a very strong criticism.

I disagreed with him, but I couldn't ignore the criticism any longer. If baby arm says it's tacky, then I'm pretty damn sure it's tacky, even though I can't see it myself. Well, that's what friends are for. If I'm hurting the site's image, then I have no choice but to remove the controversial parts of the interview, which is what I did. No drama, no hurt feelings.

Perhaps, I should have presented the article in a different format, where it looks more like a discussion and less than an interview. Perhaps, I should have given it to a different site, like RPG Vault. Well, you live and learn.

And now I will continue to argue with Dementia...

 

[Dementia Praecox]

OK, I'll allow myself such a disclaimer as well.

My reaction wasn't strong, I just used a lot of words to voice it. It became a "thing", when VD started to argue on the wrong basis. I was just trying to clarify my point, which incidentally happened to be that VDs two roles in needed to be more clear than they were. Nothing more, nothing less.

I didn't tell VD to take the AoD-bits out, and I didn't say that it was a bad thing for him to interview himself, as long as the fact that he was indeed interviewing himself was clearly stated, and that the motivation for doing so were stated in a proper manner.

Over to arguing again, or...?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Baby Arm did a better job on the visuals there...

That he did.

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

I am?

Yes, which you since have proved by taking down the AoD-parts in the interview.

I corrected a mistake, nothing more.

I wish you just had done what I requested, rather that being childish, as you are now (in taking the AoD-bits out, not by this exact reply).

One more time, either I did something wrong or I didn't. If I didn't, no actions are required. If I did, there is only one way to fix it.

You are aware of the fact that there exist people in between Halo-kid, and the hardcore Codex regular, right? Shades of gray.

Of course. However, I highly doubt that non-hardcore RPG gamers will be interested in crappy-looking indie RPGs. That's pretty much a fact.

I've answered this by now, I think.

No.

Both Baby Arm and me has answered this by now.

No, both of you simply stated that what I did was wrong, without explaining why. At this point it's unnecessary though.

Then I'll keep on explaining in the best possible way I can, until you agree with what I view as an objective truth.

Is there such a thing? Especially in this case, based exclusively on different perceptions?

Please allow me to inform you that the reason I've weighed my words in my replies to such a degree that I have (and all the emo-remarks directed towards me in the thread indicate that it shines through), just because I've been following you these four years.

Further changing it could have shown that you didn't take all of this personally, and are able to handle some constructive criticism...

I am. Which is why I removed the AoD related stuff.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Neither me nor Baby Arm demanded that you should remove the AoD-bits. "The bad taste", as Baby Arm put it, came from the lack of proper explanation at the beginning of the interview.

Anyone that isn't daft, can see that there isn't any inherent problems in interviewing yourself in this case, if it only had been justified in a proper way.

 

[The Dude]

All in all the article was great, it's stuff like this that brought me to the codex as a lurker years ago. Brings some hope for neat stuff that's on the horizon. IMO, the article lost a bit when AoD was taken out of it. The three games still remaining is different enough, though AoD was a fourth different game, accentuating the pretty broad spectrum of indie RPGs in development. I understand why it was taken down, the ideal would have been if someone else had acted as interviewer/moderator so that AoD could have stayed. Anyway, all in all great article VD.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

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

I am?

Yes, which you since have proved by taking down the AoD-parts in the interview.

I corrected a mistake, nothing more.

You corrected it in the worst possible manner (or not really, pulling the entire interview would have been worse, but you are real close).

I wish you just had done what I requested, rather that being childish, as you are now (in taking the AoD-bits out, not by this exact reply).

One more time, either I did something wrong or I didn't. If I didn't, no actions are required. If I did, there is only one way to fix it.

Hello, Bush mentality!
Is this the way choice is handled in AoD as well?

You are aware of the fact that there exist people in between Halo-kid, and the hardcore Codex regular, right? Shades of gray.

Of course. However, I highly doubt that non-hardcore RPG gamers will be interested in crappy-looking indie RPGs. That's pretty much a fact.

That is pretty much bullshit. It all boils down to proper marketing. And Mount & Blade, while not being exactly a true RPG, is paving the road for you there. And you are doing quite a fine job at "hyping" the game yourself, I admit. I could give examples of non-hardcore RPG fan-friends of mine who have found and are interested in your game independently of me, but you've shown what you think of those examples (Your view is warranted, don't misunderstand me, after all, I might as well just make that up).

I've answered this by now, I think.

No.

Yes.

Both Baby Arm and me has answered this by now.

No, both of you simply stated that what I did was wrong, without explaining why. At this point it's unnecessary though.

I'm really at loss, here. I can't quite see that we did that. And I can't quite see any other way of explaining it. And judging from the other replies, while people are indifferent, they seem to see what we viewed as a problem and why.

Then I'll keep on explaining in the best possible way I can, until you agree with what I view as an objective truth.

Is there such a thing? Especially in this case, based exclusively on different perceptions?

Ok, nice one. If you go all philosophical, then no. Probably not. Let me rephrase. I thought this could have been handled better, in a different way. I presented why, and gave examples on how to fix what I saw as a problem. If many enough people have the same view and have the same "bad taste in their mouth" then it is a problem. Galsiahs thoughts on design flaws in games, could work as a good allusion here.

Further changing it could have shown that you didn't take all of this personally, and are able to handle some constructive criticism...

I am. Which is why I removed the AoD related stuff.

No, you did because you are trying to prove some point I don't quite get (that's my impression, at least).