Jeff Vogel Soapbox Thread

[Haba]

All you should play are Exiles 1-3 and Nethergate. Geneforge if you still have the time. That' it.

Vogel, retire already.

 

[newtmonkey]

Avadon is simply mediocre, but Queen's Wish is definitely the worst thing he's done. It's ugly, character/party development is way too simple, and the story and world are childish. Worst of all, his ridiculous attempt at preventing "grinding" conversely makes combat a complete waste of time (and thus a total grind).

 

[OSK]

I couldn't finish avernum 4. It was so formulaic like saturday morning cartoon and i never bother to play 5 and 6.

Yeah, I played Avernum 4 shortly after finishing the three most-recent Avernum 1-3 remakes. I finished it, but it killed my appetite for continuing the series. It felt like a poor remix of 2 with the big bad of 3 as the enemy. Maybe I would have enjoyed it more if I didn't marathon the first three? But I imagine it would still be weaker than any in the original trilogy. At least 5 seems to have a different plot and I've heard 6 is good.

 

[Spike]

QW is not Avadon 1 bad, but it's pretty bland. If you haven't played Avadon 2 I would say do that first if you want to try some newer vogel stuff that's still decent to good. I do hear the Geneforge Remake was an improvement on the original but for me it's not a big enough update to justify buying it when I have the original.

So I own all 5 original Avernums and Geneforges. However, I have not touched them yet. And it would be the better choice to start with Avernum: Escape from the Pit (the remake/remaster) as opposed to Avernum 1? And the same would be the case for Geneforge: Mutagen and Geneforge 1? I also own all 3 Avadons because a brief look appealed more to my traditional sense of medieval fantasy and I love the art. I played a little of Avadon one YEARS ago and remember being intrigued. So 2 and 3 make 1 worth playing? If 1 really is as average as everyone says it is...

 

[arepo]

I can't tell you about the original Avernum 1 because I have never played it, but I did recently finish Escape from the Pit and I absolutely loved that game. I can really recommend it as an entry to the world of Spiderweb RPGs (thats what it was to me). Now I'm playing Crystal Souls and so far, it's simply more of the same good stuff. Highly recommended, if you like classical fantasy.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Go EXILE 1-3 first.
Then play the original Avernum 1-3
Then play the remasters through 6.

 

[Spike]

Go EXILE 1-3 first.
Then play the original Avernum 1-3
Then play the remasters through 6.

Do you mean the Remaster of Avernum 1-3, then the original rest through 6? There are not remasters past 3 for Avernum.

 

[KeighnMcDeath]

Yeah, save 4-6 until after you play the 1-3 remasters. I know that is a lot of repeat for 1-3 so it might seem excessive. I guess you could play exile/Avernum/remaster 1 then go to e/a/r 2 then e/a/r 3 then 4-6. Sounds damn tempting if I had time.

 

[OSK]

So I own all 5 original Avernums and Geneforges. However, I have not touched them yet. And it would be the better choice to start with Avernum: Escape from the Pit (the remake/remaster) as opposed to Avernum 1? And the same would be the case for Geneforge: Mutagen and Geneforge 1?

Play Geneforge: Mutagen. It's essentially an upgraded Geneforge. When it comes to the Exile/Avernum games it's a little trickier since Vogel made pretty significant changes between each version when it comes to combat, character builds, magic, etc. The original Exile series has the best combat and I'd recommend trying them. But if you can't get into them for whatever reason, the most recent remakes are pretty much the same game but worse combat and some streamlined mechanics. In exchange you get quality of life features and some new content. In the end, the most recent remakes are still enjoyable. I have no experience with the original Avernums.

 

[Modron]

Exile 1-3 are better than Avernum 1-3 but if you're deadset on playing the Avernums I haven't heard anything negative about playing the remasters over the first versions of Avernum. Avernum 1 original is missing one somewhat significant QoL improvement that 2 and beyond brought: a quest journal so you're going to probably want a piece of paper to keep track of quests/which person wants stuff like iron/sacks of grains(/at least one other thing I am forgetting)/blocked portals to return to because you can't access them without later spells.

 

[arepo]

Even with the remakes, I'd keep notes manually in addition to the in-game quest journal. There is a lot of information that the games never enter into the journal. You can create entries manually, but that only works for dialogues, not for noteworthy stuff you might otherwise encounter.

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I played Exile 1-3 and loved them. They were a great distraction during the dark times of the early 2000s. I wasn't as impressed with the Avernum series, but I did play the latest versions of 4-6 just so I could see how the series ends. The 6th and final installment does give the series a proper send off and was a solid and much appreciated finale. I would recommend playing Exile 1-3 and then the second Avernum trilogy.

 

[Infinitron]

Brutal: https://bottomfeeder.substack.com/p/the-game-industry-got-to-face-what

The Game Industry Got To Face What It Actually Is!​

A terrible awards show for a grim, mercenary industry.​

A mirror.
What fascinates me most about the video game industry is how, as huge as its grown, it lacks the institutions of other industries.

Video games are a global industry with a massive and growing fan base that sells hundreds of billions of dollars of our wares a year. We can't stop pointing out that we're bigger than film and music combined. Because we're very insecure.

And yet, film and music have publications dedicated to their industries. And full-time reporters and critics that cover just their work. (To the extent anyone hires full-time reporters anymore.) And regular space in the mainstream press to cover their work in depth, as opposed to the scraps and mentions video games get.

And they have awards (Oscars, Emmys, Grammys) dedicated to celebrating their work and those who create it.

I got to thinking about this after withstanding some of The 2023 Game Awards last week. You can watch it on YouTube, though I suggest not doing so without wearing protective gear.

I have two questions: 1. Why can't the games industry have nice things? 2. Do we really deserve to?


Why is this here? There is no Oscar for “Best Movie Watcher.” If you play in games tournaments and you want a trophy, WIN THE TOURNAMENT!
What Are The Game Awards?

I like best-of lists and awards ceremonies. It's good to spend some time every year taking stock and celebrating those who excelled. (I want to write more about this next month for the Oscars.) They're a good thing, just one of those amenities for a mature industry that people care about.

Video games have been around for 50 years, and everyone loves us. We've earned a proper award show.

There are a lot of games awards, but The Game Awards seems to be the biggest one. They happened last week. Online. No normal person heard about it.

The Game Awards CLAIM to be a Big Thing. Last year, they bragged about having 103 million views. As in, about as much as the Super Bowl and over 5 times the Oscars. I do not believe this number. I just don't. (A good think for video game reporters to ask about, if they existed.) This show makes no cultural ripples outside a day of muttering on Twitter, but it matches the reach of the Super Bowl? Come on.

It's a really lousy show, and it completely fails at the single most important goal for any award: Celebrating our work and the people who make it.

I don't want to go too much into the problem, as many have covered this already. One good source is the Washington Post, which is in many ways still a source of news. To its credit, it has an actual, dedicated game reporter on the payroll.

However, two problems need to be stressed.


Why is this here? What even is a “content creator”? If you’re a journalist, there are already awards for that. If you exist to sell sponsored content and you want an award for it, that’s what the money is for.
The Problems.

One. The show is almost entirely ads for upcoming games. Our awards show is not to celebrate what we made. It's to blow smoke up your ass about what we might make (and that might never actually exist.)

If you want to pay for this show with ads, great! How to do this is a solved problem. Every 15 minutes of show, run a few minutes of ads. Put your game announcements there. It can pay for the show, but it shouldn't BE the show.

("Wait. The ads are in the show? So The Game Awards takes money directly from the companies it is judging?" Yes. "Isn't that a conflict of interest?" GOOD QUESTION!)

Two. The awards were a contemptuous afterthought. As in, after each hour of ads and awkward conversations with celebrities, they would suddenly rush through 5 or 6 awards, speaking as quickly as possible, no explanations of the categories, no speeches, just boomboomboom and on to the next trailer.

Three. the tiny handful of awards that let you see the winners allotted 30 seconds for thank yous. And, yeah, I know, overlong acceptance speeches are boring. But seeing someone having one of the best nights of their life celebrating making something you loved is kind of cool, isn't it?

The winners ran up to the stage, grabbed their statues, and barely had time to take a breath before the "Get off the stage" music started playing. Honestly, it was MEAN.

But there was limitless time for celebs to get onstage and ramble, as well as the lamest Muppet sketch ever created. It communicated that the game industry has no pride in itself or its creators.


The Game Awards couldn’t even get muppets whose voices sound right. Gonzo has never sounded so off.
So In Summary

The Game Awards is entirely concerned with making a quick buck and letting the host hang out with Keanu. It contained absolutely no love for and pride in our young, strange, art form. It's gross, mercenary, and overlong. It was kind of trashy.

But this is where I part ways from other critics of the show.

The Game Awards is exactly the show the video game industry deserves.

Entertainment For the Overcaffeinated

I mean, be honest. When I talked about love and pride in our industry? When I suggested that The Game Awards might have conflicts of interest? Didn't you gag a tiny bit. Like, "Oh, you sweet summer child, have you MET the video game industry?"

People who complain about The Game Awards (myself included) dream of something like the Academy Awards. Something with a history, with a love of the craft, with the occasional bit of dignity (like the Oscars' historical montages and In Memorium), and with the excitement of seeing the people who make the work.

Hollywood is a crass, mercenary place, but it's still full of people who dream of making great art. Every year some of them succeed, even though those works make less money. And the Oscars are flawed and their ratings are dropping (at least now), but they are a genuine institution and nobody doubts that they are made by people who love movies.

How do video games compare?

So here's a fun exercise. Closer your eyes and picture The Oscars, but for video games. Really. Try it.

It wouldn't work.

What Is the Video Games Industry Anyway?

Video games make the vast majority of their money from addicted, obsessive whales buying loot boxes and kids who buy DLC with the credit cards they stole from the parents. To make an awards show that shows love for the art would involve bringing in less cash, and games companies never EVER leave money on the table.

And do most of the fans even want The Games Awards to change? Right now it's a 3 hour show which is 90% ads. However, most of this show's fans are 12 year olds hopped up on Panera caffeine death lemonade, and that's what they WANT.


Our industry has such pathetic self-esteem. Why do we get excited when a celebrity plays video games? Dude, it’s 2023! EVERYONE plays video games! Is there really nobedy in this industry we love enough to let hand out this award? NOBODY!?
What Would Our Dream Game Awards Even Have?

Game development celebrities? They don't exist.

Fortnite and League of Legends are the two most popular video games. Can you name one designer on each of them? Probably not. That's why The Game Awards imports big names from other industries. Our creators are dedicated and talented, yes, but nobody will pay to see their faces.

Artistic Achievement To Celebrate? Come on. The Oscars used to be stylish. That age is past.

Yes, yes. I know. Games Are Art, and all the usual homilies. But products that really try to be art have tiny audiences and nobody wants an award show about them. (Evidence: The plummeting ratings of the Oscars.) What gets the crowds excited is Peter Griffin in Fortnite. And let's be clear. Peter Griffin in Fortnite is awesome. But I don't care if someone gets a statue for it.

A Dignified Look At the History and Inventors of Our Industry? I mean, it's possible. As our creators age, there will be a need for an In Memoriam for game developers. Also, the Oscars always have a few montages to show the history of cinema. The Game Awards should have these, to remind us how incredibly far we've come from Pong and Pac-Man. Nolan Bushnell should be up there handing out a statue every year.

But this would cut into ad time, and our industry doesn't do dignity. So never mind.


The real dream, of course, is to have an awards show as dignified and classy as the Oscars.
The Real Problem Is Obvious

Video games were invented too late. Nobody can afford real reporters, so we don't have a fully-staffed industry press. Paying for magazines is gone, so "Variety magazine but for video games" isn't going to happen. Even if it was economically feasible to make a serious game award that celebrates the industry and the many different sorts of artists in it, nobody would want it.

To have awards, we need traditions. To have traditions, we need people to stay in this industry for the long run and care about it. Maybe we'll have that someday. Not now. Everyone leaves.

Video games took over the world so fast because they always moved at top speed, always mercenary, taking no prisoners and never stopping to think. The Game Awards represent us perfectly. Maybe this can change, but not in this generation.

To have game awards that mean something, a large chunk of the industry has to be animated by a spirit besides ego and greed. A handful of idealistic indies lurking in the shadows won't cut it.

This sort of change can happen, but it won't be made by us. It's a generational sort of change. It will require the world to change and our industry to change in reaction to it.

Until then, let's just be happy that we have the fun of arguing about this. If you live a life where The Game Awards seems like a real problem, things are probably going pretty well overall.

 

[thesecret1]

I'm quite happy there is nothing as thoroughly disgusting and corrupt as Oscars, Emmys, etc. and all we get is some scuffed memeshow. The idea I might someday read some faggot dev tlaking about how his aspiration is to "win an award" like actors, directors, and similar wretches do instead of aiming to make a good fucking game fills me with nausea.

 

[tritosine2k]

I'm quite happy there is nothing as thoroughly disgusting and corrupt as Oscars, Emmys, etc. and all we get is some scuffed memeshow. The idea I might someday read some faggot dev tlaking about how his aspiration is to "win an award" like actors, directors, and similar wretches do instead of aiming to make a good fucking game fills me with nausea.

His point is to have many viewpoints in consideration like movie industry has (or used to have) auxiliary input from papers and vidya has KEANUUUUUUUawaaaaaaww. Also specifically says oscars wouldn't work.

 

[thesecret1]

I'm quite happy there is nothing as thoroughly disgusting and corrupt as Oscars, Emmys, etc. and all we get is some scuffed memeshow. The idea I might someday read some faggot dev tlaking about how his aspiration is to "win an award" like actors, directors, and similar wretches do instead of aiming to make a good fucking game fills me with nausea.

His point is to have many viewpoints in consideration like movie industry has (or used to have) auxiliary input from papers and vidya has KEANUUUUUUUawaaaaaaww. Also specifically says oscars wouldn't work.

My point is that any kind of award show made nowadays will inevitably turn into a cuckfest where prizes are awarded based on how progressive a game is (just like the Oscars).

 

[kuniqs]

I guess we won’t get another creation toolkit until Jeff calls it quits.

Didn't he candidly admit once that the reason he never remastered Blades is because it would make his business model even more outdated? But my mind is foggy on the subject, pardon me, I'm very old and tired.

He did, and I think he hates Blades of Avernum on a personal level. See, he actually put a lot of effort on BoA, made it a clear improvement over Blades of Exile, put in a C-esque scripting language which I guess is Turing complete... and people didn't like it. Sales were low, everyone complained it's too complicated and went back to hacking scenarios in BoE. It was so bad, Vogel had to whip up Avernum 4 (the worst of the hexalogy IMO) at double time to avoid bankrupcy.

 

[Infinitron]

https://bottomfeeder.substack.com/p/genres-are-marketing-terms-and-your

Genres are Marketing Terms, and Your Advice is Bad.​

Art is slippery. The firmer your grasp, the sooner it slips out of your hands.​

If you really wanna go nuts, try to define what a “game” is. I mean, Hidden Object Games barely even count as an activity. And yet, we know they are games, because they have “game” in the name.
One of the great (?) things about making and writing about games for 30 years is the patterns you get to see. Arguments that come up again and again. Mistakes that keep being made.

I've found that creators and writers often have a phase where they try to come up with their hard, fast rules for art. It's a way to fail to bring soothing order to a process that is unnervingly chaotic and unpredictable.

This isn’t useless. When you're new to an art form, you need to study it. Learn everything that has been done and what has worked and what didn't. Organize it into categories according to what inspires you and what doesn't. It's a healthy waypoint on the way to a productive process of shaking all old ideas of rules and categories off and doing whatever the hell you want.

The problem is when these ideas escape containment from the soothing calm of your Mind Palace and become Tweets. Then debates, then arguments. It's a process that has been going on as long as art's existed.

It's fun to argue, but when you start proclaiming, "This is the one true way to make work," or "These are the rules that define what this piece of art is," you're probably well on the way to wasting time. And time is precious. The most important debates happen inside your own head.

I have to confess at this point that I was inspired to write this by seeing multiple discussions on Twitter/X. It's a very bad idea to take seriously anything you see on Twitter/X. It's a medium designed to prevent complex thought, a pedant's paradise, and really a very very VERY small corner of human thought.

Still, these arguments happen everywhere always, and it's good to be inoculated.

So here's a brief taxonomy of how to Waste Your Time Talking About Video Games


There is a fun bit of whimsy involved in assigning genres to games. I’ll never stop using the term “walking simulator” because it makes me giggle.
Don't Make Hard Rules For How To Make Art!

Making video games is hard. [citation needed] There are a LOT of steps and a LOT of decisions to be made, technical and artistic. Things can go very wrong very quickly. Thus, it is important for creators to assemble and talk and trade tips for how to make things easier.

You run into trouble, however, when you try to make any hard, fast rule for how games are made. Art is slippery. There is ALWAYS an exception. As soon as you try to get a firm grasp on something, it gets away from you.

For example, there's this guy named James Silva. He is a highly successful indie game creator who makes really good action games (Salt and Sanctuary is the best-known one.)

This Absolute Madman never uses placeholder art. He can only really get going on his work when he's using final art. He does the art first! What a madman! Yet, you can't argue with the results.

Me, I make low-budget, story-heavy RPGs. I use the same engine and art, game after game, for years and years, only getting redone what I need for my current story. My games, by the modern standard, look like absolute dogs***.

I get hassled for it all the time, not just by customers but by pros who should know better. Yet, I'm going to have a full career writing indie games. You can't argue with the results.

When you make art, when you try to channel a Muse, you must figure out your own process. You must figure out the weird, magic set of steps that work for you to create. Then you must defend it.

Give people advice all you want. Debate as long as it's fun. Then do whatever it takes to get the work done.


The first result in a Google image search for “artistic process.” I want to make fun of this, but, honestly, it’s not wrong.
Don't Struggle To Define Games Into Genres!

If you want to sell your work to an audience, you need to divide your art form up into rough categories. Subcategories of books include: "Mystery." "Romance." "Fiction." Subcategories of music include: "Jazz." "Rock." "Pop."

This is done as a courtesy to customers, to help them find the thing they want more efficiently. Video games have similar terms: "RPG." "Roguelike." "Metroidvania." "Indie."

Just never forget, they don't have hard, fast meanings! There's no swab test to tell if a game is "Survival Horror" or not. These are marketing terms, no more and no less. Vague but useful.

You run into trouble, however, when you try to come up with explicit definitions for them. Art is slippery and evades any attempt to lock it down with words. You simply can't come up with a complete, mathematical definition for whether a book is a "Western," or a song is "Pop," or a game is "role-playing."

Don't even try.

This is even more true now than it was in the past, because one of the best ways to innovate as an indie is to mix and match genres. "Match-3 RPG." "Roguelike Card Game." "Co-Op Action Puzzle Game With Brief Sections Containing Every Other Genre" (Puzzlequest, Slay the Spire, It Takes Two)

Defining a genre of any art is like trying to describe a cloud by drawing the cardboard box it's closest in shape too. You think you got it right, but then someone says, "But what about this example? Or that counter-example?" and mist starts leaking out of your box.

Note that genre confusion really frustrates me sometimes. When customers go to the RPG section of the Steam store, I want them to have a chance to see my games. They won't, however, because they are buried under a torrent of action games and visual novels, a lot of them porn. It bothers me, but I accept it, because I can't point at any of those titles and say, "I declare thee not an RPG! Begone!" It's my fault for working in such a vaguely defined genre.

A genre is a set of design choices, some more or less important. Don't look at the marketing term. Look at the design, and pick and choose the elements that inspire you most. Don't get hung up on rules.


This is a very good informal depiction of my artistic process.
Don't Find the One True Meaning Of Indie!

And, by the way, indie has always been a pure marketing term.

I mean, sure, we all kind of know what it means to be indie. Humble tinkerers, working on their own in garages or dingy, cheap offices, creating dreams free of huge monolithic business structures.

Yet, the games industry is huge and complex, and there are a billion sorts of business structures. I can't come up with a hard definition of indie. When I say my game is "indie," the term has a vague meaning defined by popular usage. People kind of know what I mean.

Recently, the video games industry observed The Game Awards, an annual infomercial with some award show qualities. They give an award for Best Indie Game. One of the nominees was Dave the Diver, which was made by a subdivision of a billion dollar company. We can debate what "indie means," but, um, that's not it, right?

Why was Dave the Diver nominated? Because it is kind of creative, and because it has pixel art. So that's what indie means now. Common usage defines words. Next week, a 2-D platformer with roguelike elements about a depressed gerbil will be indie, even if it's entirely made by Microsoft.

But I try not to worry about it. The truth is, Best Indie Game is already a condescending, meaningless award. In any given year, a huge chunk of the best games will be from small, independent studios, period.

"Indie" basically means, "We actually tried to make something creative!" That's a definition I can live with.


This game is a Sampler Box of every game genre in existence, so it is immune to categorization. However, if it did have a category in Steam, within one week half the games in that section would be erotic visual novels.
Don't Write a Manifesto!

By the way, if you are ever tempted to write a Manifesto about the True Meaning of video games, don't. You will be disappointed. (For fun, Google “Video game manifesto” and look at the multitude of misbegotten attempts.)

If you want to shape how games are made, the best way to lead is by example. Write a great game that inspires. THAT is what gets the kids to want to be like you. Be the change you want to see in the world.

You Just Gotta Stay Loose, Man!

When I see debates about rules for game creation, and categories to sort games into, I am reminded that this is, after all, a very young art form. Older art forms seem less prone to this because they've had much more time seeing rules get broken. The story of Painting is century after century of revolutions.

It really makes sense that game designers like rules. We are, after all, sculptors of rules. And it makes sense that we like firm categories, as many of us were drawn in by games that relied on the comfort of firm categories. (A charmander is never half of a fire type.)

But again, this art form is so young. Our revolutions come at the rate of several a decade. The things I've seen video games be able to do have expanded so much in just the last ten years.

Most of what I have written is obvious, I freely admit. But the punchline may not be: We have so much left to explore and so many new things left to do. We have so many cool, new ideas ahead of us.

It's all a matter of mindset. Be ready to accept all-new things, and be ready to defend and celebrate then. If you want to be around the cutting edge, a LOT, video games are the place to be.

 

[Rincewind]

It's a very good piece, and I agree with 99% of what he writes. The 1% (and important 1%) is that the vast majority of the population *likes* to live in these little genre boxes. Show an "old-school rock fan" some rock music with synthesisers and there will be riots in the streets man.

So marketing categorisation is one thing, but a *large* number of people *want* derivative experiences. I guess many people crave safety, and no change and not challenging expectations is a way of achieving that safety (psychologically speaking).

And, to be honest, I'm not that different with my love for the stuff I grew up with (old games, '80s music, etc.)

 

[Tyranicon]

Jeff Vogel (pretending?) to not know what a content creator is, hilarious stuff man.

 

[n0wh3r3]

I got bored of Queen's Wish 2 because the plot isn't going anywhere exciting. Should I give Avernum: Escape from the pit a try?

 

[Viata]

Avernum is great. Obviously, Exile is superior but alas, gotta play what you can.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

The problems he's talking about don't really exist.

We like to argue about definitions for autistic reasons and calling each other fags, all in good fun. But the problem isn't edge cases that defy classification, it's games that clearly fall into one category while their creators stubbornly insist they belong in another.

Genres aren't marketing terms, though they are exploited by marketing. Genres are consumer terms, shorthand for quickly sorting through the endless deluge of content. It's funny that he mentions Walking Sims because that label was bitterly contested by the makers of those games. They complained it was derogatory; it put their games into a low prestige category while they insisted they belonged at the highest.

Hard to remember now but the walking sim genre was aggressively shilled by the media with rapturous praise and delusional hype. They weren't just a new take on the visual novel, no, they were real art, the first real games ever, the most influential new genre of all time. They were going to take over all genres, all games would be walking sims in the future, all other genres would become niche. The future of gaming was walking around a tiny game space and listening to a socially progressive narration.

Then sales collapsed and the genre died.

Developers complained that the Walking Sim label was hurtful and mean. The reality was the term Walking Sim became hated because the games were trash. Creators don't get to categorize their games. The market will decide what your game is, not you.

 

[Lacrymas]

Yeap, genres usually originate from the audience in contemporary times. It's a bit more complicated when talking about the past because consumers were much more decentralized and not in conversation with each other like now, so genres were either created retrospectively by scholars/authors (collectively) or were created by a specific author who named them as such. Оr originated naturally among the common people, like most forms of folk dances.

 

[Serus]

Avernum is great. Obviously, Exile is superior but alas, gotta play what you can.

Why can't you play Exile?

Don't forget Nethergate. Everyone forgets Nethergate.