First I'd like to make clear again that I think AoD looks like it'll be very good - if not perfect. The criticisms I'm making are in an effort to point out where it might be slightly improved, and how it might (IMO) be effectively "hyped".
His interviews are informative (but not informative enough heh). That's all I need.
Sure. That's all you need, that's all I need. We're satisfied so long as there is substance. So why not aim the style at a broader audience? If it doesn't appeal to them, you've lost nothing, since codexers etc. still get their substance. If it does appeal to them you gain.
Whether a more up-beat, positive, mild "hype" style would have wider appeal is debatable, but I think that it would. Clearly I'm not suggesting anything silly, but I think a mild move in that direction would do no harm, and possibly help.
PLus, he's not aiming to seduce the major RPGdot audience which was, to put it very mildly, sceptical of the project from the very start.
I don't think there is one "RPGdot audience", any more than there is one codex hive mind. Clearly RPGdot is not the place to go overboard with hype, but again, no-one is suggesting that. Obvious enthusiasm backed up by fact and reasoned argument is not a bad thing.
Concerning the language in dialogs: I daresay that you should also consider the fact that some NPCs are not supposed to speak polished, academic-level english. Again, that's a question of stylistics and game design.
Sure - in some places that applies, in others it doesn't. Trying to excuse all mistakes by suggesting that "There's no reason why people might not talk like that." is just silly. The success / failure of the dialogue lies in its effect on the player. If the player is left confused by grammar, mislead by poor word choice, or put off by the use of odd phrasing, then that is not good. Whether or not the NPC would have talked in that way is irrelevant.
You can defend "incorrect" grammar / word choice etc. where it is used consciously and consistently (e.g. Planescape: Torment). Defending one-off mistakes or poor phrasing on the same basis is silly.
I think VD got the tone spot on. Positive about what makes his game special, a little humour and lots of detail on his game.
He certainly gave a load of detail, but how was he "positive"? It's entirely description - good, interesting description, but still description. It seems positive because it's a description of something we like, but it's really no more positive than is a label saying "Chocolate Ice-cream".
There's next to nothing in there about why VD wanted to make that sort of game, or why he designed feature X in such and such a way. The reader is always left to draw his own conclusions. That's fine for codexers who have played many RPGs, and share similar views on them, since it is obvious. It's not obvious to everyone.
Here's a quote from the interview:
...the fall of the Roman Empire as a great reference material...
That's the only use of the word "great" [other than "great sword"] in the entire thing. VD sounds more enthusiastic about his reference material than about his game.
Too much happy spin and people (outside of the codex) will think he's mad to be so upbeat about a game which is not using the very latest of video technology.
Will they? I think you are polarising things. People who can only handle enthusiasm when applied to video technology really aren't going to buy this game. That extreme (a popular extreme, but still an extreme) is not worth aiming at, but there is a significant middle ground between traditional RPG enthusiasts and FPS graphics junkies.
Most people respond positively to a degree of enthusiasm, so long as it is backed up by a few facts and arguments. Genuine enthusiasm is by far the most effective - it seems mad not to use it.
Manage expectations, state the facts and intrigue more than hyperbole your way to dissatisfaction. He's practising what he preaches in his news posts.
Manage expectations? Whose? Most people know nothing about AoD. There is no expectation. Before you can manage expectations, you need to increase awareness. To do that you need to do more than hand out reference manuals and expect people to see how wonderful everthing is for themselves.
I'm not suggesting this sort of thing:
"The graphics are absolutely amazing - just wait until you see them."
That's pointless hyperbole.
I'm suggesting this sort of thing:
"We went for feature X because we wanted to emphasize Y and Z. This is a great way to create interesting gameplay because ... and ... [give example situation]"
At the moment it's more like:
"AoD has X, so there's a lot of Y and Z. So for instance [give example situation]"
For example, in the interview:
Iron Tower: The gameworld is very reactive. Everything you do affects someone or something and has consequences...
There's a golden opportunity to say why choice with consequence is important, why it's a focus in the design of AoD, and why it makes gameplay more interesting / involving. The opportunity isn't taken.
To be fair, VD does cover that issue in the "Philosophy" section, but as I've already mentioned, he takes a "Lack of consequence is shit" approach, rather than a "Consequence is great" approach. The latter would have been a little more inspiring.
And the audience he is aiming at is going to be one with quite a mature view of the RPG genre who will respond far more positively to an honest overview of the game devoid of the usual developer bullshit.
Mainly I agree with this, but I'm not advocating the usual developer bullshit. I think VD's interview was the best and most informative I've seen in some time. That doesn't make it perfect.
Also, I'd question the notion that the audience needs to have a "mature view of the RPG genre". They don't need to have
any view of the RPG genre. Quite a few people might try AoD without having tried many RPGs, simply because it's shareware. A significant number of young people might be on the cusp of developing a "mature view of the RPG genre" - why not tell them why they'll enjoy it, rather than just giving them the facts and hoping they'll work it out for themselves?
