Jeff Vogel Soapbox Thread

[Ludo Lense]

That or just make a painfully unfunny physics simulator and start rolling in cash.

 

[MRY]

True. Not sure why so many people hate on him. He's kind of got it made. . . . It's what I wish the Fallout series was like. More of the same goodness and on the same engine.

I certainly don't hate him, but for there are a few things that bother me about his approach. One is that the quality of his work seems to have gone down -- views may differ as to when that happened (i.e., whether Exile 3 was the peak, whether Avernum 2, Geneforge, etc.), but, wherever you draw the line, the breadth and depth of the content peaked in the past and started going down. Another is that, at least for a while, he had a somewhat indifferent attitude toward his fanbase, or at least that's how I read it, in that there were very minor things he could have done to make his games much more appealing (see, e.g., the Geneforge UI patch), which he nevertheless refused to do. This included refusing offers of free art from his fans (and, full disclosure, free writing from me). I think he's changed in this regard recently, but I definitely got the sense that far from saying, "I am going to reuse my engine so that which each game, I can incrementally build something better and better" (which thus far seems to be the HBS model) at some point he began saying, "I am going to put as little into each game as I possibly can without seriously hurting sales, so I can make as much profit as possible."

That may be a sound business strategy, but it's not a mindset I particularly appreciate (though, of course, food on the table for family, etc., etc.). And, to be honest, I'm not even sure it's that sound a business strategy because all his posts make it sound like he's trapped himself on a treadmill where he can't materially improve his games because of budget reasons, but can't grow his audience because of the games' limitations. I come at this from the standpoint of a hobbyist, but it seems to me a sad fate if "making it" as an indie developer means that kind of treadmill churn -- I miss the creative exuberance and ambition of his earlier games (one man can make so much?!), though I do have some sense of the burdens he's working under.

 

[28.8bps Modem]

Meh. I'm sure he'll do what 90% of idiots do with too much money: spend it on drugs and hookers. Either that or bad investments.

According to him, he's already spent it all on developing The Witness. Six years and a decent sized team will do that. It'll be hilarious if that turns out to be a flop.

Vogel is not the one complaining here, he's just giving excuses why he's taking 0 risk and reusing the same stuff each iteration.
But he's in a somewhat comfortable position. He has found his niche and a bunch of "loyal fans" that keep him afloat, something that won't work for the majority of indies out there.

It wouldn't work at all if there were any decent number of indies trying to eat his lunch. Making RPGs scares them, so we only get one or two a year.

 

[Mustawd]

snip

Well the guy just might realize he's hit his creative ceiling. Which is ok. Not every dev has tons of material they can draw from in a continuous fashion. For example, I'm a pretty funny guy, and I'm pretty sure I could have a good fledgling career doing stand up.

But I'm also very sure that material would dry up after about a year. The fact that some comics continue to come up with good material year after year after year (i.e Louis CK, Hannibal Burress, Maria Bamford, Al Madrigal, Todd Barry, etc. etc. etc.) is just amazing to me. Which in the end tells me I should never be a stand up comic on a professional level. I'll just make my wife and coworkers laugh on a regular basis and I'm good with that situation.

Vogel kind of seems to be a bit like that. He's creatively tapped and has nothing left in the tank (due to personality, family, kids, whatever). And the things you mentioned, not accepting free writing or art, seems to make sense to me. If he's going to rely on his old work he's going to do it on his own terms. Where his own visions is preserved. Either that or he's butthurt over people being creative when he can no longer be.

Spoiler

I think it's the latter

 

[Lhynn]

I'll just make my wife and coworkers laugh on a regular basis and I'm good with that situation.

aww, ill laugh at you

 

[Mustawd]

aww, ill laugh at you

 

[Ludo Lense]

I certainly don't hate him, but for there are a few things that bother me about his approach. One is that the quality of his work seems to have gone down -- views may differ as to when that happened (i.e., whether Exile 3 was the peak, whether Avernum 2, Geneforge, etc.), but, wherever you draw the line, the breadth and depth of the content peaked in the past and started going down. Another is that, at least for a while, he had a somewhat indifferent attitude toward his fanbase, or at least that's how I read it, in that there were very minor things he could have done to make his games much more appealing (see, e.g., the Geneforge UI patch), which he nevertheless refused to do. This included refusing offers of free art from his fans (and, full disclosure, free writing from me). I think he's changed in this regard recently, but I definitely got the sense that far from saying, "I am going to reuse my engine so that which each game, I can incrementally build something better and better" (which thus far seems to be the HBS model) at some point he began saying, "I am going to put as little into each game as I possibly can without seriously hurting sales, so I can make as much profit as possible."

That may be a sound business strategy, but it's not a mindset I particularly appreciate (though, of course, food on the table for family, etc., etc.). And, to be honest, I'm not even sure it's that sound a business strategy because all his posts make it sound like he's trapped himself on a treadmill where he can't materially improve his games because of budget reasons, but can't grow his audience because of the games' limitations. I come at this from the standpoint of a hobbyist, but it seems to me a sad fate if "making it" as an indie developer means that kind of treadmill churn -- I miss the creative exuberance and ambition of his earlier games (one man can make so much?!), though I do have some sense of the burdens he's working under.

I don't understand why people give Vogel so much attention. He is long past his creative phase and was nothing more than a novelty rather than a success. The one/two man team thing isn't so rare now. I'd much rather hear what The Mount&Blade couple, Edmund McMillen or the Banished guy have to say rather than him. He is old, I get it, but that doesn't equate wisdom.

 

[Mustawd]

I don't understand why people give Vogel so much attention.

Because turn-based

 

[LundB]

Told you Vogel was degenerate. Pony pictures.

Everyone knew that since the time he wrote a big article about how an anime cripple porn game (not exaggerating) showed him what feelings and true love were all about.

 

[Excidium II]

Most overrated game on earth. Everyone I wanted to bang wasn't bangable.

 

[Mustawd]

Most overrated game on earth. Everyone I wanted to bang wasn't bangable.

Romances su....oh for fucks sake..we're having the same conversation over and over again Excidium...

 

[MRY]

Mustawd I believe I recall him saying at some point that he just didn't have the time/energy any more to do worldbuilding, which seems right. It's not so much that the settings reflected a brilliantly creative mind; instead, they reflected time, thought, care, etc., all things that are hard to do when you've got a family, etc., etc.

Ludo Lense He's support himself for years making very humble games; I think there's something impressive about that. M&B had a lot more mass appeal, same with McMillen's. I'm not sure there's much that your average workaday type like me could learn from M&B or McMillen ("learn to make art that people really like"), but Vogel, maybe.

 

[Mustawd]

Mustawd I believe I recall him saying at some point that he just didn't have the time/energy any more to do worldbuilding, which seems right. It's not so much that the settings reflected a brilliantly creative mind; instead, they reflected time, thought, care, etc., all things that are hard to do when you've got a family, etc., etc.

Ludo Lense He's support himself for years making very humble games; I think there's something impressive about that. M&B had a lot more mass appeal, same with McMillen's. I'm not sure there's much that your average workaday type like me could learn from M&B or McMillen ("learn to make art that people really like"), but Vogel, maybe.

Fair enough. I guess I just like the worlds he's created. Regardless of creative innovation.

 

[TigerKnee]

Most overrated game on earth. Everyone I wanted to bang wasn't bangable.

The twintailed drill hair girl?

 

[MRY]

Fair enough. I guess I just like the worlds he's created. Regardless of creative innovation.

I like them too!

 

[Gord]

He's doing decent enough games, imo, if a bit bland ones. Certainly many good ideas in them.
Anyway no reason to hate him.

But the reason that he's able to survive on them, esp. when half his games are just remakes of his older games, or even remakes of remakes, is just that there's almost 0 competition in that field.
The moment some other indie dev came up with party-based, large open world games with plenty of exploration and tb combat, but fresh content, a slightly better engine (at least tack on some simple lighting engine, Jeff...) and aesthetically more pleasing art, he might find himself in trouble.

 

[Infinitron]

He's doing decent enough games, imo, if a bit bland ones. Certainly many good ideas in them.
Anyway no reason to hate him.

But the reason that he's able to survive on them, esp. when half his games are just remakes of his older games, or even remakes of remakes, is just that there's almost 0 competition in that field.
The moment some other indie dev came up with party-based, large open world games with plenty of exploration and tb combat, but fresh content, a slightly better engine (at least tack on some simple lighting engine, Jeff...) and aesthetically more pleasing art, he might find himself in trouble.

I don't know, you'd think that if 6000 copies sold per game is enough for him he might never be in trouble. That's a pretty tiny number for somebody who already has brand recognition.

But then, the difference between success and failure is so thin. Look at these numbers:

Avernum 2: Crystal Souls, Vogel's latest game: http://steamspy.com/app/337850
Serpent in the Staglands: http://steamspy.com/app/335120

5000 buyers seems like nothing, but it's a big deal for these guys.

Maybe after the Avernum remakes and Avadon trilogy is complete, and he has to do something new...if the new game sells as much as Staglands did, he might be in trouble.

 

[Mustawd]

Well, he's still has the Geneforge games to fall back on. So it might be a while before we see something new from him.

 

[Gord]

I don't know, you'd think that if 6000 copies sold per game is enough for him he might never be in trouble. That's a pretty tiny number for somebody who already has brand recognition.

But then, the difference between success and failure is so thin. Look at these numbers:

Well, he does rely heavily on reusing old stuff, while Whalenought had to start from scratch. I'd wager that they would require relatively low sales to keep afloat if they did a Vogel and just kept on using their engine and assets as well.
Of course they'd first need to reach a certain baseline, but after that, who knows.
I doubt they would be so happy with it at this point in their career, though.

 

[Infinitron]

Well, he does rely heavily on reusing old stuff, while Whalenought had to start from scratch. I'd wager that they would require relatively low sales to keep afloat if they did a Vogel and just kept on using their engine and assets as well.
Of course they'd first need to reach a certain baseline, but after that, who knows.
I doubt they would be so happy with it at this point in their career, though.

Oh, that wasn't my point. (As a matter of fact Whalenought probably require even less sales than Vogel because they're a young couple without children.)

The point is that SitS couldn't even get as much as a Vogel game, so 6000 sales for an indie RPG is by no means assured.

 

[Turjan]

I think I've said this already before, but I have the impression that Vogel only writes these pieces to get his name out on a regular basis. It's his kind of PR. He will be quoted in several places on the net, and it doesn't cost a dime. It doesn't really matter that much what exactly he says. It's not a bad read though.

I may be wrong on this, but I had the feeling that he hates the kind of RPGs he's doing nowadays. He's just caught in that niche he has furnished for himself. I actually hope I'm wrong here.

 

[Mustawd]

I may be wrong on this, but I had the feeling that he hates the kind of RPGs he's doing nowadays. He's just caught in that niche he has furnished for himself. I actually hope I'm wrong here.

Nah. Pretty sure he's burnt out on these type of games. But he's too risk averse to try anything new due to having a family to feed, etc. Point is: Don't have a family and be a game dev if you don't have appropriate risk appetite.

 

[Infinitron]

This should be good: http://jeff-vogel.blogspot.com/2015/09/early-access-difficulty-fetishests-and.html

Early Access, Difficulty Fetishests, and Driving Yourself Insane


BRACE FOR IMPACT

I am always amazed by how little I am able to predict the game industry. The success of Steam Early Access (where developers can put their unfinished games up for sale early) is still a bit of a shock.

When I started out writing shareware in the last century, shareware had a pretty bad reputation. It was often buggy, weird, and badly put-together. But at least, as rough as a shareware game might have been, at least when it was released it was DONE. We were so old-fashioned then.

Yet you can't argue with success. Early Access is a popular new way of developing, is here to stay, and requires new techniques and guidelines. One recent cautionary tale may, I think, be very instructive.

Early Access, Failing In Public, and How to Fill Your Brain With Madness

So now developers can release their game early. This has good points. Gamers get the game earlier. The developer can get possibly much needed cash. Most interestingly (to me), users get a chance to watch an unfinished game take shape before their eyes.

On the other hand, the game will be buggy and incomplete, and you can't be sure it will ever be finished. Also, and this is the part that really interests me, the developers have to finish a game in view of the full public. It's hard enough to write a game under the best of circumstances. Early access devs have to write a game while the entire world is shouting at them.

I fear the views of the unfiltered public. I've written about this before. If you let too many loud voices into your head, it can drive you mad. Outside feedback is necessary, but you have to filter it. For me, ten sensible people are far more useful than 10000 internet randos. You'll write a much better game if you don’t just throw the doors of your brain open to the world.

Which brings us to the recent fascinating case study: Darkest Dungeon.


This is how my game development process looks under the best of circumstances.

Darkest Dungeon: A Cautionary Tale

When Darkest Dungeon came out in Early Access a few months ago, I talked it up a lot. It's a really ingenious roguelike. You keep a stable of 20 or so adventurers and pick bands of 4 of them to send into really nasty dungeons.

The dungeons are (or were) moderately tough. You'll probably get through, but a run of bad luck can permanently kill some (or all) of your characters. Much of the game is judging how you are doing and deciding after each fight whether you should flee or not.

(There's also the unusual mechanic of a sanity meter. Upsetting events can drive your characters insane. In my experience, this basically just acts as a second health bar, so I'll leave it undiscussed.)

You could usually beat a dungeon without much fuss, but there was always a chance of disaster. This led to an experience that was pleasingly tense and exciting without being soul-crushing.

However, I have to refer all of this in the past tense. When the game was new, I visited their forums to see the feedback they were getting. When I saw it and how the devs were reacting to it, I thought, "Oh boy. This could be a problem." And it was. Sadly, the game I loved is kind of gone.

If you want a much more detailed view of the kerfuffle, go here for agood write-up. Official word from the shell-shocked developers is here.

In short, what happened is that this highly talented crew of game makers allowed the Difficulty Fetishists into their heads, and now they are trying to repair the damage.

The Most Dangerous Form of Feedback

There are lots of different ways you can get damaging feedback, but the Difficulty Fetishists are the ones you must fear the most. They are marked by three qualities:

1. They ALWAYS want the game to be harder, no matter how hard it already is.
2. They will be the loudest, most persistent givers of feedback. They will swarm forums, making them seem more numerous than they are.
3. They are mean and contemptuous to anyone who suggests, no matter how meekly, that the game is too hard to be fun. ("n00b!" "LRN 2 PLAY!" "GIT GUD!")

Now let us be very clear. Gamers who love really hard games ARE a valid audience. I have several such gamers as permanent members of my testing pool, and they are invaluable when I design the harder difficulty levels. However, they MUST be kept away from influencing the default difficulty level at all costs.

Since Darkest Dungeon only has one difficulty level and is intended to be a hard game, you can see the problem. The Difficulty Fetishists dominated the feedback. Now Darkest Dungeon is a brutal and unforgiving game in which, among other things, you have to hack away the bodies of monsters you already killed to get at the archers murdering you from the back.

The result was that the silent majority of content players became very disgruntled and non-silent, and now the developers are trying to find their way back out of the weeds. I'm sure they will manage, though it's a great example of how treacherous trying to please one faction of gamers can be.

This is, of course, only one form of bad feedback. There are as many ways to give bad advice as there are people. This is why using Early Access to give all of humanity a chance to poke at your game when it is still amorphous and unformed is risky.

Fortunately, there are ways to mitigate this. First, though, I want to mention one other peril of Early Access.


I suggest planning a realistic schedule before going into Early Access. Writing tweets like these are not fun.

How One Rogue Developer Can Screw Us All

I know I repeat myself overmuch on this point, but the biggest thing going for indie gaming is that people like us and want us to succeed. When one of us is a jerk or con artist, it hurts all of us.

If you put your game on Early Access, you MUST do one of these two things: 1. Finish it roughly according to schedule, or 2. Humbly explain what is going on and apologize.

I know some online commentors put down gamers for being Entitled, but if I pay money for half a game and a promise of the second half, dammit, I AM entitled.

(Sadly, after my experience with the promising title Kentucky Route Zero, I've stopped buying Early Access games at all.)

I’m not sure exactly where to draw the line for how long is too long when finishing an Early Access game. It’s an interesting question that bears discussion. How about this for a potential rule of thumb to argue over: If you can’t say with confidence your potential Early Access game will be done within a year, maybe it needs more time in the oven.

For early adopters, if you take too long to finish your game, you might as well not have finished it at all. Remember, every year the number of elderly gamers increases. Sorry for this extra pressure, but if you take too long, when your game is done, some of the people who bought it won't be alive anymore.

My Humble Advice For Those Who Take This Road

I'm not going to give advice to the Darkest Dungeon people. As I said, they're really talented folks, working on a game with huge potential. I could offer advice to them, but I'm often wrong, and the last thing they need is another loud voice in their heads.

Instead, I will make a humble suggestion or three to those who have yet to go down this road.

Advice One: Form An Elite Feedback Strike Force

Gamer feedback has diminishing returns. Adding more people doesn't help much. Read your feedback, find a good, diverse pool of 10-15 solid advisors, and take most of your advice from them.

Advice Two: It's OK To Stop Listening Sometimes

Trust yourself. If you start to feel confused and bereft, you have my permission to turn off the feedback hose. Take a breath. Enjoy silence and peace. Play your game yourself and see if you like it. You're the designer. If you're digging what you made, it's OK. Trust yourself.

Advice Three: Ban the Evil

This is a big one. If you have a forum and some dude attacks or insults someone else giving feedback, you must ban him. DO IT. BAN HIM. BANHIMBANHIMBANHIM. If he gets mad, tell him how to get a Steam refund. If he can't get a refund, mail him a personal check. Just get rid of him.

This is not an overreaction. The worst thing a tester can do is try to shame and scare off other people giving honest feedback. Anyone who tries to drive away other testers is a direct threat to the health of your business. Terminate with extreme prejudice.

Also, banning jerks is fun and theraputic. It is an activity I recommend highly.

Early Access Is An Experiment

Then again, I feel everything in the game industry is an experiment now. This whole thing is new, and it's evolving faster than I can follow.

I won't try it out myself. I'm too old-fashioned, and I like doing most of my creating in a relatively calm, quiet environment. However, if you would prefer to do your delicate design work while on a flaming rocket, alarm klaxons blaring, flying at top speed into the heart of the sun, I think that Early Access might be just right for you.

 

[MRY]

There are lots of different ways you can get damaging feedback, but the Difficulty Fetishists are the ones you must fear the most.

Indeed, their sway explains why games have gotten progressively more difficult and less hand-holdly over the years.

 

[Mustawd]

Two points Vogel seems to have missed:

1. Difficulty fetishists or whatever are simple to deal with: Make a harder difficulty level that's apart form your core audience. Not that hard...which brings me to..

2. Know who you want your game to be for. If you want access to a broad audience...then make your game more accessible. If you want your game to stand for a specific type of experience (aka Age of Decadence, mobile games, etc.) then go for that, but make sure you're customizing the game accordingly and listening to the applicable feedback.

It's really a simple thing, but it seems so many studios forget that fact because they chase all the $$.