Shrapnel to Take on Wargamer.com?

[Combat Wombat]

Alright that makes sense thank you.

[mac5732]

Personally, I like the idea. There are many games out there and most of the reviews are in game magazines which I tend to be skeptical of in a number of occasssions, (example, I've seen raving reviews on some games that I've played, and which IMHO were lousy and yet the reviews praised how great they were. Yes I would like to see a review site that is objective and gives fair reviews. As far as starting a war with wargamer, I don't think thats what Shrapnel has in mind. There is always room for another review site, the problem is, getting people, lst to read it, 2nd to believe the reviews are fair and honest and not tied to special interests. You might want to add a write i section where fans can also comment on the games. That way you show your review and also comments from those who've played the game.

My 2 cents

[Azselendor]

Good to know it's a placeholder, can't wait to see the real deal.

[Tim Brooks]

Klvino [ORB] said:
Good to know it's a placeholder, can't wait to see the real deal.

Check it out now:

The Gaming News

Still only a prototype, but comments are welcome!

[mac5732]

Hey Tim, It looks great, I like the coloring and the set up, looks neat, nice job... when do you think you'll get it actually up and running so we can put the word out?

mac

[Azselendor]

It's starting to look a lot better now! Of course, I still can't wait until its completely done!

[War_Oberst]

mac5732 said:
Personally, I like the idea. There are many games out there and most of the reviews are in game magazines which I tend to be skeptical of in a number of occasssions, (example, I've seen raving reviews on some games that I've played, and which IMHO were lousy and yet the reviews praised how great they were. Yes I would like to see a review site that is objective and gives fair reviews. As far as starting a war with wargamer, I don't think thats what Shrapnel has in mind. There is always room for another review site, the problem is, getting people, lst to read it, 2nd to believe the reviews are fair and honest and not tied to special interests. You might want to add a write i section where fans can also comment on the games. That way you show your review and also comments from those who've played the game.

My 2 cents

I think this hard because there are many peopel who write reviews out there. Is it not their opinion that is posting? It is fair to assume that if a game come out and five hundred buy it. Then say fifty hate it awful and four hundred fifty love it. One of fifty that hate it is the reviewer and writes as such.

Balance of being a good objective writer is knowing you are not the only one who play it and if you hate it there may be peopel that love it. Or other way round. Say you hate the game but ask why can be done to make it better and good. Not telling peopel who make it why they are stupid.

When you read opinion of gamer reviewer it is a measure of thier publisher who post reviews as to if they let such garbage out there or not or if they make writer temper it.

As for special interest it would be high prase for gamesite to be owned by publisher and make it have fair review ESPECALLY Of games that compettitors make.

[Tim Brooks]

As for special interest it would be high prase for gamesite to be owned by publisher and make it have fair review ESPECALLY Of games that compettitors make.

What is a competitor? As a niche game publisher, we compete with other niche games publishers for developers products. And that is all. Once a competitor has a game it is in the best interest of all publishers to have that game be a success. The more successes the greater the market.

This isn't automobiles we are selling here, where there will only be two or three to a household. Most gamers, those that account for almost 80% of games sold, buy many games. It is not a matter of I can buy x publisher's game or I can buy y publisher's game. If they like both games, they will buy both games.

So, being a publisher and being fair in reviews is not a problem that I really see. Our policy to reviewers is very simple:

1. Write the review to the products audience. (Don't reveiw a hardcore wargame as it applies to a casual gamer, because that is not the market the publisher is going after).

2. Give the pluses and minuses fairly. (Tell the audience what you like and don't like about the game).

3. Don't score it as this is subjective. (Reveiwer A may not have the same interpretation of scoring as reviewer B).

4. Treat every game equally, regardless of publisher.

[Annette]

War_Oberst said:
I think this hard because there are many peopel who write reviews out there. Is it not their opinion that is posting? It is fair to assume that if a game come out and five hundred buy it. Then say fifty hate it awful and four hundred fifty love it. One of fifty that hate it is the reviewer and writes as such.

Balance of being a good objective writer is knowing you are not the only one who play it and if you hate it there may be peopel that love it. Or other way round. Say you hate the game but ask why can be done to make it better and good. Not telling peopel who make it why they are stupid.

When you read opinion of gamer reviewer it is a measure of thier publisher who post reviews as to if they let such garbage out there or not or if they make writer temper it.

As for special interest it would be high prase for gamesite to be owned by publisher and make it have fair review ESPECALLY Of games that compettitors make.

I’m sure I’ll take some heat for this, but I’m going to play devil’s advocate. The quotes below are the documentation portion of two pc game reviews published on the same review website within a two week period. Both games would be considered wargames from independent publishers. Although written by different authors, one would assume the reviews were held to one editorial policy by one editorial staff. I’ve noted the reviews’ publication dates in relation to the games’ release dates but obviously cannot say when the review copies were made available. I feel safe assuming Game A was not sent seven months prior to release and that Game B was not sent seven months past release. I have removed the games’ titles and replaced them with Game A and Game B respectively.

Game A, reviewed same day as game’s release:

Installation, Documentation, and Tutorials[/i]

The game installed without fault and consumed approximately 520 MB of hard disk space.
The manual is large – approximately 120 pages - and comprehensive. It’s logically laid out and makes ample use of screenshots to help explain the game’s features. It covers initial set up; game controls; tutorials; and provides thorough explanations of the units – how they move, attack, are researched and produced – as well as how supply works and offers some sound strategic advice for each of the playable powers. Having a detailed manual helps enormously. Although Game A may look like an easy game to play, it actually requires more cerebral input than expected to play the game to its full potential.

The game ships with two tutorials, covering the principal components of a game turn: movement/attack and production/research.

Game B, reviewed 7 months after game’s release :

Nothing like a Wargame with a Big Manual to put the Fear of God into You

Game B is a mere 80MB install, and the game runs smooth as a polished wood panel; the area of difficulty for many may come in that the game operates its briefings through an internet browser, which can cause problems for those running tight firewalls not overly fond of OOB’s.

The manual is necessarily 130 pages and is crammed full of essential detail. Game B is a game which requires a very thorough read through unless one wishes to become completely and utterly lost from the first moment.

Now, if I told you that one of these games was published by the company which owned the review site, would you believe both reviews were written objectively and without bias?

[Dave Erickson]

Brilliantly stated!