by Roody at work » Wed May 09, 2007 12:40 pm
I don’t think I touch on anything that Robb didn’t cover, but...
For me, what makes something like this especially frustrating is that it may seem like those of us that don't agree with Sherman's promotional style are offended by his enthusiasm. On the contrary, I love seeing people who are really excited about IF in the IF community; I don't even read the IF newsgroups these days, but I think it's awesome that Radical Al is still out there doing his thing without waning enthusiasm, and the day that his critics take that away from him, I'll be rather pissed off.
As Robb pointed out, though, Sherman is dismissive of all of the contributions that have made his games even possible and feels obligated to attack anyone who doesn't like his games (granted, not everyone expresses their distaste in a friendly manner).
Also, I do not have a problem with the marketing strategy to sell games and to try to develop one's own name brand. I still believe making packaging and feelies for games is a worthwhile venture just to give the customer the "this is a real game" feeling even if this approach hasn't been very profitable for anyone (considering the amount of work required to even write a good game). Plus, a customer feels the obligation to immerse themselves in the work and therefore discover its qualities that much sooner. It has taken me years to get around to playing through some of the better-received IF games just because some of them have introductions that make me say to myself, “Ah, I’ll play this some other time when I can try to get into this.”
Of course, the price of selling your games is that you have to betatest the shit out of your games and make sure they are professional quality. I know this is one of the areas that people have found lacking in Sherman’s case.
But just as he exploited the work of Graham Nelson and z-code interpreter writers by not giving credit where it’s due, it’s equally wrong to try to cash in on the Infocom name brand. I don’t think the narrative stylings of any of his games could be mistaken for Infocom prose. Instead of comparing himself to the best IF company when it came to making games for a general audience, he should recognize the fact that he’s making products for a niche market and pursue that market instead of putting all of his energy into trying to trick old Infocom fans into thinking that he’s the only person carrying the IF torch these days.
What kind of faith can anyone have in a product for which the marketing is based on deception?
I don’t think I touch on anything that Robb didn’t cover, but...
For me, what makes something like this especially frustrating is that it may seem like those of us that don't agree with Sherman's promotional style are offended by his enthusiasm. On the contrary, I love seeing people who are really excited about IF in the IF community; I don't even read the IF newsgroups these days, but I think it's awesome that Radical Al is still out there doing his thing without waning enthusiasm, and the day that his critics take that away from him, I'll be rather pissed off.
As Robb pointed out, though, Sherman is dismissive of all of the contributions that have made his games even possible and feels obligated to attack anyone who doesn't like his games (granted, not everyone expresses their distaste in a friendly manner).
Also, I do not have a problem with the marketing strategy to sell games and to try to develop one's own name brand. I still believe making packaging and feelies for games is a worthwhile venture just to give the customer the "this is a real game" feeling even if this approach hasn't been very profitable for anyone (considering the amount of work required to even write a good game). Plus, a customer feels the obligation to immerse themselves in the work and therefore discover its qualities that much sooner. It has taken me years to get around to playing through some of the better-received IF games just because some of them have introductions that make me say to myself, “Ah, I’ll play this some other time when I can try to get into this.”
Of course, the price of selling your games is that you have to betatest the shit out of your games and make sure they are professional quality. I know this is one of the areas that people have found lacking in Sherman’s case.
But just as he exploited the work of Graham Nelson and z-code interpreter writers by not giving credit where it’s due, it’s equally wrong to try to cash in on the Infocom name brand. I don’t think the narrative stylings of any of his games could be mistaken for Infocom prose. Instead of comparing himself to the best IF company when it came to making games for a general audience, he should recognize the fact that he’s making products for a niche market and pursue that market instead of putting all of his energy into trying to trick old Infocom fans into thinking that he’s the only person carrying the IF torch these days.
What kind of faith can anyone have in a product for which the marketing is based on deception?