Indie Game Scene Drama Bomb: Dyad Dev Tweets Anger about Fish / Indie Game: The Movie

#54
Well I think his initial plan was to stay quiet, but then saw how over-blown Fish made the situation (talking about wanting to "murder" the dead and shit) so he got fed up. What social network would spread the word the fastest? Twitter.
Sure, I understand his view point, but he also needs to remember Phil is very obviously a creative neurotic and the movie is trying to be entertaining.

If this documentary was a Capturing the Friedmans look at Fez, I can see the complaint, but it's trying to weave multiple stories while keeping the audience's attention. Someone's almost always gonna get burnt in that situation.
 
#56
The film makers choosing only to include a rant against the business partner who left is the very definition of editorialising.

Selective EDITING = EDITORIAL comment.

I can also personally vouch for the fact that Phil Fish is the much less likeable partner than the one 'blurred out' by the film makers.
I'm sure...

Anyway, the film is partially about Phil Fish. They had a very limited timeframe with which to showcase three stories, and for someone already invested in these stories it was a little unsatisfying. The only mistake made by the filmmakers is that, as far as I know, they weren't in contact with DeGroot until after the film had been (mostly) edited. I think that's the problem people close to him, fairly, have with it, but again, I don't think a counterpoint would have been contextually appropriate, or relevant to the story they were trying to tell.
 
#57
Sure, I understand his view point, but he also needs to remember Phil is very obviously a creative neurotic and the movie is trying to be entertaining.

If this documentary was a Capturing the Friedmans look at Fez, I can see the complaint, but it's trying to weave multiple stories while keeping the audience's attention. Someone's almost always gonna get burnt in that situation.
Right, I see your point. But it's painting a very stilted picture of the indie scene, one that is tough to support at times.
 
#60
I haven't watched the movie but I've worked QA in a game dev studio (casual games) and I think the movie is saying that "indie devs" have it so much worse because of lesser budgets for development, publishing, marketing, etc, and maybe in a way it is true but that is definitely not a reason to portray indie devs in a really pretentious/really full of themselves manner.
 
#65
Having a hard time understanding what's going on here. I haven't seen it but I didn't realise the movie was a documentary in the strictest sense. I was always under the impression that it was quite personal for the filmakers so of course it's going to be skewed in whatever direction they lean.
 
#66
I haven't watched the movie but I've worked QA in a game dev studio (casual games) and I think the movie is saying that "indie devs" have it so much worse because of lesser budgets for development, publishing, marketing, etc, and maybe in a way it is true but that is definitely not a reason to portray indie devs in a really pretentious manner.
I agree completely, if anything you would expect them to be more humbled by the experience. It was very disheartening at times. But, it did give some glimpse into the lives of an indie dev.
 

cuyahoga

Dudebro, My Shit is Fucked Up So I Got to Shoot/Slice You II: It's Straight-Up Dawg Time
#67
The movie would've been less interesting if they went to get this other guy's perspective though.
 
#69
I'm interested if more people didn't come away from the movie thinking Fish was a "bad guy" or at the very least someone who would be difficult to work with. I feel like the movie was making a comparison between being driven like the Team Meat guys and being obsessive like Fish. In that case I don't think the film was taking sides, I thought the take away was more about how Fish dealt with the situation (breaking down and threatening murder) than the situation itself.
 
#70
Also, I'm sure devs and corporate folks from larger studios/companies have drama internally and externally but the difference is that drama-stuff rarely make it to the public/gaming community.

From the movie's trailer alone (can't wait to watch the entire thing, still downloading), the subtext is something like "indie devs are struggling artists that have it much worse than devs from large studios so they need to be glorified in a really dramatic way".

I'm really interested in the experiences of an indie game developer but I don't want to feel all sorry for them and admire them just because they're "indie".
 
#73
If I'm reading it right the claimed lie appears to be that the film makers claim they tried to get both sides of the story when in fact they turned down requests to cover the other side.
I directly asked the filmmakers this after a screening, and they said they didn't feel that getting his side of the story was important to the film, or something.
 
#74
I think basically the scene in questions is when Phil is:

sitting in a hotel lobby just before PAX talking about how his partner won't sign legal documents that are preventing him from actually showing the game. Phil rants on about how basically he is pissed off about the situation saying he wants to kill him and starts getting frustrated saying "he is gonna be a millionaire for doing absolutely nothing yet he won't sign the papers" out of spite. He is also mad that Jason was at PAX to show off DYAD so if he didn't sign the papers he could still show off his game and gain while Phil could possibly lose out.

I don't see a problem with the scene in question it's a documentary. Was he being over dramatic? maybe, but it's his opinion. Personally Phil came off as scared to me about how at that point FEZ was slowly running the risk to lose it's identity and was close to getting lost in the shuffle after being absent for so long. PAX was essentially the first time anyone was gonna be able to play it so the frustration obviously was showing.

I wonder if the directors tried to consult Jason as he is blurred out in pictures throughout the film. If so and he declined then tough for him in my opinion. It's really hard because the film touches on the legal problem but doesn't go into any real detail and there is obviously some really bad blood and bitter feelings between the two as we can see.For all we know either of them could be either lying or they just obviously see it different but only one persons take is represented.

I wonder if the blu-ray with all the extra stuff is done yet. Would be cool to interview Jason for it to get the other side if that is at all possible.It was also cool they showed Renaud in the film dude worked his ass off as well.
 
#78
Phil Fish co-founded Polytron with another dude who eventually left the company on bad terms with Fish. There was a big legal stink between the two over the company and FEZ, with some scenes of Fish blowing up over the other dude making it into the film.
So what's the lie?
The movie paints the other guy as the bad dude in the story and the DYAD developer wanted to go public in support of him, reminding people the movie presents a very biased and skewed version of the real story. It's as simple as that.
The film makers choosing only to include a rant against the business partner who left is the very definition of editorialising.

Selective EDITING = EDITORIAL comment.

I can also personally vouch for the fact that Phil Fish is the much less likeable partner than the one 'blurred out' by the film makers.
If I'm reading it right the claimed lie appears to be that the film makers claim they tried to get both sides of the story when in fact they turned down requests to cover the other side.
??????

 
#81
Ah I didn't catch that at the end. If so then stop complaining you had your chance.
Did you people not read the OP?

DYAD ‏@DyadGame
Note:I tried to meet with the creators when they were in Toronto to settle this privately but they weren't able to. I chose not to via email
DYAD ‏@DyadGame
@indiegamemovie "Phil Fish's ex-business partner asked not to participate in this film." - isn't that the *EXACT OPPOSITE* of the truth?
That line, according to the guy complaining, was a straight up lie.
 
#83
Hello everyone, I can't find the info for my old account so I made a new one to post (I usually just lurk; I'm a terrible person).

I wrote those tweets, and I admit twitter probably isn't the best place to make a coherent argument, so I'll try to clear up whatever I can now. I *HATE* the drama as much as you guys do, but in this case I feel being silent is worse than speaking up. The other side of the story had a public outlet to make their side known, and with the movie released and seen by so many people it became impossible to solve this behind-the-scenes, so I had to say something publicly.

I had strong feelings about the way the ex-partner was portrayed in the film (full disclosure: he helped immensely on my game, and he was at PAX East during the film to help me demo my game), but I had no intention of saying anything until long after my game was released so as not to confuse the two things. I'm going public with this to attempt to right some wrongs; I'm simply stating the truth because no one else was doing it.

The main reason that caused me to speak up is the underlined screenshot above that states: "Note: Phil Fish's ex-business partner asked not to participate in this film." That is completely false. That line was not in the screeners, and was added only to the final version. He asked to participate and was told his story was not needed. He then contacted the IGTM people asking for a line to be inserted into the movie stating that he was not asked to participate. The text they put in the movie is a lie, and the complete opposite of what happened. It's what caused me to go public with anything.

You'll also notice that there's a big contrast between "Ken Schachter - new partner" (as listed in the movie) and the "ex-partner". It should also be noted that the first executive producer listed in the credits is "Ken Schachter". To me this is a clear conflict of interest. Ken is portrayed in a heroic role near the end of the film for solving the contract dispute with the antagonistic "ex-partner" and only that one side of the story is shown. Regardless of what the other side is, (it's not my position to state what the actual facts are), the conflict of interest should be noted, and anything related to that should be taken with a grain of salt.

As for the comments regarding expecting a documentary to be objective truth - one can hope right? ;) I recognize that most, (no?), documentaries present 100% objective truth, but that doesn't make it okay. Especially when another person is being attacked and someone is saying he's going to murder him. Expecting 100% truth and expecting a film with a clear conflict of interest to attempt to be truthful, rather than go out of their way to lie (referring to the line in the credits) are two separate things. I agree that showing his side of the story would probably make for a worse film, but that's no reason to treat someone so dishonestly.

Thanks for reading this wall of text. I will be around to clear up anything that I'm able to.
-Shawn McGrath
 
#86
Hello everyone, I can't find the info for my old account so I made a new one to post (I usually just lurk; I'm a terrible person).

I wrote those tweets, and I admit twitter probably isn't the best place to make a coherent argument, so I'll try to clear up whatever I can now. I *HATE* the drama as much as you guys do, but in this case I feel being silent is worse than speaking up. The other side of the story had a public outlet to make their side known, and with the movie released and seen by so many people it became impossible to solve this behind-the-scenes, so I had to say something publicly.

I had strong feelings about the way the ex-partner was portrayed in the film (full disclosure: he helped immensely on my game, and he was at PAX East during the film to help me demo my game), but I had no intention of saying anything until long after my game was released so as not to confuse the two things. I'm going public with this to attempt to right some wrongs; I'm simply stating the truth because no one else was doing it.

The main reason that caused me to speak up is the underlined screenshot above that states: "Note: Phil Fish's ex-business partner asked not to participate in this film." That is completely false. That line was not in the screeners, and was added only to the final version. He asked to participate and was told his story was not needed. He then contacted the IGTM people asking for a line to be inserted into the movie stating that he was not asked to participate. The text they put in the movie is a lie, and the complete opposite of what happened. It's what caused me to go public with anything.

You'll also notice that there's a big contrast between "Ken Schachter - new partner" (as listed in the movie) and the "ex-partner". It should also be noted that the first executive producer listed in the credits is "Ken Schachter". To me this is a clear conflict of interest. Ken is portrayed in a heroic role near the end of the film for solving the contract dispute with the antagonistic "ex-partner" and only that one side of the story is shown. Regardless of what the other side is, (it's not my position to state what the actual facts are), the conflict of interest should be noted, and anything related to that should be taken with a grain of salt.

As for the comments regarding expecting a documentary to be objective truth - one can hope right? ;) I recognize that most, (no?), documentaries present 100% objective truth, but that doesn't make it okay. Especially when another person is being attacked and someone is saying he's going to murder him. Expecting 100% truth and expecting a film with a clear conflict of interest to attempt to be truthful, rather than go out of their way to lie (referring to the line in the credits) are two separate things. I agree that showing his side of the story would probably make for a worse film, but that's no reason to treat someone so dishonestly.

Thanks for reading this wall of text. I will be around to clear up anything that I'm able to.
-Shawn McGrath
Oh wow, that's pretty poor form from IGTM, wonder what they have to say about this.
 
#92
First of all, how did you get a GAF account validated in one day?




If what you say about the line in the credits being un-true then by all means I believe this ex-partner has the right to be upset. But a bold faced lie is a bold faced lie and you have reason to call them out. I wonder if they have replied, or if more of the story lies in the hours and hours of extra features that the more expensive (collectors) version of the movie (60-70 bucks) promises.

I got to see a live screening of the movie here that Fish and the filmmakers spoke at afterwards. He seemed humbled and he mentioned that he did not want to be filmed when he was on tilt, in the Boston hotel especially, but that the filmmakers insisted - and he knew that part at least was honest to his feelings at the time.

""The main reason that caused me to speak up is the underlined screenshot above that states: "Note: Phil Fish's ex-business partner asked not to participate in this film." That is completely false. That line was not in the screeners, and was added only to the final version. He asked to participate and was told his story was not needed. He then contacted the IGTM people asking for a line to be inserted into the movie stating that he was not asked to participate.""

So the screenshot shows exactly what he wanted in the end? "He asked to participate and was told his story was not needed. He then contacted the IGTM people asking for a line to be inserted into the movie stating that he was not asked to participate."

Should that have been in the credits: "Phil Fish's ex-business partner asked to participate but we didn't feel there was need for his side of the story because we only have so much time in a film and have already cut out a ton of interesting content, when we told him that he decided that he wanted us to insert a line in the movie stating that he was not asked to participate so in deference to him: Note: Phil Fish's ex-business partner asked not to participate in this film.""

Completely false?

Pretzel logic or am I missing something?
 
#93
Should that have been in the credits: "Phil Fish's ex-business partner asked to participate but we didn't feel there was need for his side of the story because we only have so much time in a film and have already cut out a ton of interesting content, when we told him that he decided that he wanted us to insert a line in the movie stating that he was not asked to participate so in deference to him: Note: Phil Fish's ex-business partner asked not to participate in this film.""

Pretzel logic or am I missing something?
No, I think what he asked for was:

Phil Fish's ex-business partner was not asked to participate in this film.

What he got was

Phil Fish's ex-business partner asked not to participate in this film.

Like I said, the worst ever game of telephone.
 
#94
No, I think what he asked for was:

Phil Fish's ex-business partner was not asked to participate in this film.

What he got was

Phil Fish's ex-business partner asked not to participate in this film.

Like I said, the worst ever game of telephone.
EDIT for clarity:

It says "Phil Fish's ex-business partner asked not to participate in this film."

What it should say is:

"Phil Fish's ex-business partner was not asked to participate in this film."
 

firehawk12

Subete no aware
#95
So could someone add that stuff to the OP, because I had no idea what was going on until the screen shot. lol

It makes sense why the dude is pissed off though, since he's clearly being misrepresented.
 
#96
Ah I get it now... yeah that is pretty low.

They needed to say something, because the whole conflict along with the face blurring left much to the audience's imagination. I suppose the guy in question just wants to move on and so that's why we haven't heard from him. I guess I would be respectful of his wishes but if I were a friend I can see why it would be hard not to go all in in response :)

On the plus side, now I'm looking forward to trying out Dyad!
 
#98
For what it's worth, the line was always supposed to read "Phil Fish's ex-business partner was not asked to participate in this film", it was brought to their attention last night, and they've been preparing a new, corrected version to replace the one currently on Steam/streaming/etc.