Yeah, Purcell is working in Disney-Pixar. So I’m guessing they could reach an easy arrangement, at that.
Also, yeah Ron is related to DoTT via Maniac Mansion. There are characters of MM in it, you can actually play the game there. It’s not spamming because the information is relevant to people who are looking for something “like it”. Let’s be real, these games are hard to find, and the Steam algorithm helps a lot to find something you enjoy. There’s no ethical or moral problem there.
Edit: Went and added the tags.
Click here if you want free professional marketing consultancy about spam
In ranking systems when something “goes up”, something else “goes down”.
So, in ranking systems spammers get a result at the expense of someone else or of something else (like the quality of the results of an algorithm).
Let’s pretend for a moment that I’m an expert about this topic, that I continuously provide knowledge to people so that they have the information to realize when they are shooting themselves in the foot or when they can be harmful to others, that I exactly know what Steam likes and dislikes and that I just submitted a spam report to them citing in the email this very thread.
My question to all of you is: are you absolutely 100% sure that Steam wouldn’t consider “spam” a coordinate attempt that increases the visibility of something at the expense of something else?
Do you think that they might perceive it as an attempt to “game a system”?
What about the subjects whose products will get less visibility because of this activity? Will they perceive this activity as spam?
This is what I teach to some of my clients: a subject that wants to do spam (any form of it) MUST realize and admit that what he/she wants to do is spam, because if this realization and admission don’t happen, the subject will never ask himself incredibly important questions like:
- How do I estimate the Risk-Benefits ratio?
- What will be the actual benefits of this activity?
- Is the goal actually reachable?
- Can I estimate the economic results?
- Are the economic results so low that it doesn’t make sense to do spam?
- How do I estimate the risks?
- What are the anti-spam countermeasures of the system I want to spam?
- What is the anti-spam policy of the system that I want to spam?
- Are there risks for me (the promoter)?
- Are there risks for the subject that I want to promote?
- If the spamming activity will be detected by the system I want to spam, will it be considered supported by the subject that was promoted?
- Are there risks for the reputation of the subject that I want to promote?
- Are there risks for other third-party subjects?
- Do I know well enough the algorithm I want to influence?
- How do I design a spamming tactic so that the algorithm is influenced?
- Do I have the resources to influence the algorithm?
- If I get results, how long will they last before things automatically change?
- How do I understand and measure what has happened after my actions?
- Do I have the tools to observe what has happened?
- Do I have all the information I need to understand which economic results I have obtained?
Part of my job is to improve other people’s knowledge and to give them a method so that they learn how to take decisions based on knowledge instead of decisions based on ignorance.
After I provide this knowledge and a method, what happens is that a good 90% of people realize that they were about to do a very very very stupid thing. Like super-duper stupid. Like Darwin-awards-stupid. The remaining 10% decides to do it anyway, but only because they calculated the risks-benefits ratio and established that it was OK to try. It’s their choice.
Another part of my job is to help people who did spam (sometimes realizing that they were doing spam and sometimes don’t realizing that they were doing it) and who “got caught” by the system that they spammed.
Ugly stuff. 
So, yeah, everyone is free to do whatever they want (sometimes pushing this “freedom” even at the expenses of others) but knowledge-based decisions always win.
I apologize for the long post, I thought that some of you might find this information useful.
I will not bother you further about this topic.
3 Likes
Thank you for posting that. As someone who used to work in the so-called Search Engine Optimization trade (read: “google spam”) back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, I concur 100%.
My view on this...
I always told my clients: the search-engine algorithms are attempting to discern relevance. Therefore, if your page or product is genuinely relevant, they are on your side. It’s just a matter of describing or exposing that relevance in a way that is clear to users – not to the machines.
Back then we used to do this with natural language descriptions, eloquent prose and exposition, and proper use of relevant terms to describe a product in a very clear and concise way. The result is that humans would understand your product better, and by consequence (and almost by side-effect), the search-engine algorithms would rank your page or product higher in relevance for certain topics or keywords.
The machines are trying to simulate user interest; sometimes they don’t do it right, and they do have lots of limitations –but that is their ultimate goal. Therefore, attempting to “game” the system or to “advertise to the machines and not humans” is only very short-sighted, since you will be caught in the next algorithm refinement that tries to get closer to the truth – or worse, your attempts will be rejected and flagged, and your future campaigns will suffer.
Over the last decade, these systems have gotten even more sophisticated, so understanding this is even more important.
This is the reason why I wouldn’t recommend tagging Day Of The Tentacle with “Ron Gilbert.” It has the smell of intent to deceive. Those who propose this are doing so with the very clear understanding that what they are trying to do is suggest to people that the games were made by the same person. Saying “but there is some link between the games” is a rationalization, and they know very well that that is not what the label would suggest.
If you want to associate one game with another, then devise tags that are actually clear and relevant to users, and that describe closely the linkage you want to convey – not those you think will attract people, because that could be disingenuous.
dZ.
1 Like
That’s absolutely not true.
Seriously, what do you think the tag of a person’s name – and especially of a well known game designer – will suggest to other people, if not that the game was designed by the same person?
I submit that any nuance imbedded in the rationalization of the tenuous link that Mr. Gilbert was involved in the underlying engine in the past or that at some point contributed some story elements at the inception of the project, are absolutely not there in that tag.
I can’t speak for Mr. Gilbert, but I personally wouldn’t like to put my name on a project in which my involvement was minor and other people deserve the bulk of the credit – especially of art direction, story, and puzzles; which are the essence of an adventure game. I also would hope that my fans and followers would respect that.
dZ.
Judging from the lenghts he goes through to correct people who think he was in any way involved with it I´d say it´s a safe bet to say he wouldn´t like it at all since that wouldn´t help things in any way.
1 Like
Art/UI… But is the “culprit” the art or the UI? What is the general opinion among readers of this forum?
I’m still unsure about it, but we can’t exclude that it’s both, the combination of the two aspects.
Maybe that specific visual boxed pattern of “textual verbs on the left and inventory items on the right” is so strongly linked by our brains to old ways to manage characters, that every time that UI is used some people will just perceive a relic of the past.
At first I could not imagine an adventure game fan that could be discouraged by that UI. But then it occurred to me that, if by “adventure game fan” we mean “Broken Sword fan”, or “Daedalic fan”, then I can at least visualize how this could happen. In hindsight, of course.
But if we really believe that, we must also believe that a hypothetical TWP special edition with a UI like DOTT remastered would sell 400.000 copies.
1 Like
I can be merely to denote an association, which there is. I think you are overthinking it.
No. I think you are overestimating the associations and mental leaps casual viewers will make when seeing that tag.
I think that may be a factor. That coincides with my observations of my colleagues, who seem interested in the story and puzzles until they look at the graphics and assume it’s just an old-school, old-fashioned game. They don’t appear to even conceive that it could be a very modern stylized adventure game.
It reminds me of my cousin when we were kids. We used to go out to the video store to rent movies and he always said things like, “if it’s black-and-white, it’s old, and I don’t like it.” He would miss out on great sci-fi movies that we could both be enjoying just due to that stupid bias.
dZ.
I guess we just see it differently Jay. Let’s agree to disagree. 
Well, the difference is that my view results in no harm done, and focus on actual practical ways to increase the relevancy and visibility of the product; while yours has the potential of misguiding others and result in anti-spamming measures taking action.
I admit I could be wrong, but I would still err on the side of caution and good will.
dZ.
Yes, and generally modern adventure games never used that interface. So I think that it makes sense if people consider it a feature forgotten by the industry.
Of course in TWP it made sense to use this UI, because the game was designed to emulate those old games, but the fact that it’s a simulation doesn’t imply that the brain of the people belonging to the more modern audience will accept it.
My hunch is that rejecting that visual imprint is not a rational reaction but a very instinctive one, something driven by how the mind has classified that visual pattern:
Computer user interfaces have become quite sophisticated nowadays, especially after the “mobile revolution”, that has pushed forward the need to create more accessible and usable software.
Interfaces used in the past were created by software developers. Today this field of research uses even MRI scans to see which parts of the brain are activated when the user does something and the quantity of knowledge that we have accumulated about how to design interfaces is several order of magnitudes bigger than what we knew in those days.
No modern interface designer would let a software developer design a user interface, today. 
That cluttered thing above is a problem. And apparently it might be a problem even when used just as a intentional reference to the past.
Who knows? Sales are driven by a large quantity of factors and interfaces are just one of them.
Yes, and I think that the fact that this factor plays a role very early in the decision process of the consumer is particularly troubling. First visual impressions (and how our brain interprets visual signals) are extremely important.
Basically because, until I have reason to believe there’s more than one problem in something, I tend to assume there’s only one. 
(It’s not like that TWP strikes me as a game with flaws. It’s hard to even find one for me.)
If we’ll look at IMDB, for example all Nightmare on Elm Street movies are tagged with Wes Craven’s name even though he only did two of them (there are 8 in total). The thing is, he created the characters for the franchise, so he will always be credited. Where you have Freddy Krueger, you have Wes Craven. Same thing with Ron Gilbert and DOTT. He’s the original writer.
Actually, IMDB has a page on DOTT. So, is Ron tagged there? Yes he is! I think it’s safe to say he should be on Steam too.
4 Likes
You’re implying something less than good will on my part, simply because I don’t agree with you. That’s disappointing but I’ll cope.
Best of luck.
Open and accessible is what I call it. After playing a game with coin interface and having to press a key to get my Guybrush inventory up, a couple of days before I found TWP, TWPs interface was a relief.
Why hide interfaces that you are gonna use on virtually every other interaction in the world.
When you go into an editor, they don’t normally hide the font size away in some context menu that has has to be enabled before use. Games could maybe take a lesson from that. Hide things you use seldom, show things you use all the time.*1 Its not like a puzzle game-world view absolutely has to use all the screen real estate, in action games its opposite, because that real-estate gives increased awareness and FP immersion.
TWP shows the interface when you are focusing on puzzles (of which visually seeing your inventory is a big part), and small increments of story. And hides it in cut-scenes and dialog when story immersion should be front and center. Just as should be for such a game, in my opinion.
And if people get turned off when seeing TWP screenshots or videos, I think it for most would more be the pixel-graphics than the inventory+verbs, or that its a puzzle game, not action. But I suspect more it being simply the target audience not being aware of the game.
DoTT already had 3 brands going for it, initially LucasArts+Maniac Mansion, and later remastered; the title itself cause people remembered it. I played LucasFilm/Arts adventures alot, they stuck in my mind, I was a fan, but still I did not know who Ron Gilbert was, nor SCUMM, I think that’s true for many, so I did not look out for those brands. After playing Monkey Island bought in summer sale I specifically had to dig for similar games before finding TWP. Its mostly about visibility for target audience in my eyes, you literally have to expose them to its new brand, several times maybe even, before they realize “this might actually be something for me”.
Its early days still. A rating on Steam of 95% from owners is pretty darn good, you really have to scroll down the reviews to find the occasional down-vote. If TWP manages to be sold to many in 1 years time, then Terrible Toybox will have made a name of itself, and most of them will be looking out for the next similar game wanting more of the same (this time maybe wanting to get it right away, before it goes on discount). And the snowball might starts rolling if TT follows up on that.
PS: I might also have seen the pixel-graphics as something negative (but would still have bought game due to it being from same guys that did MM and MI), if I hadn’t seen a Google Talk with Ron Gilbert explaining their reasons for it. As I have not bought a single pixel graphics game before that was not a very old game, and have been avoiding them like the plague.
*1 - Or auto-show (without clicking) things when you think they are relevant to the gamer, but that option is probably not so relevant to this topic or I’m too tired to see it.
2 Likes