"Would it be bad form..." Topic

Hi all,

I was sitting here and contemplating more stuff for my blog when it struck me that I should do game reviews as well as all other post-apocalyptic reviews (just watched The Quiet Earth amongst many others).. but then there's a catch.

Seeing as I'm about to launch a post-apocalyptic wargame of my own (through lulu.com), I just couldn't help but think that maybe it would then be in poor taste to review other systems?

What are your thoughts? Should I, as a budding game designer, keep my mouth shut in regards to other wargames out there? Or should I just review the games that I want and keep on truckin'? :)

I see no problem as long as you state your bias
and give a constructive critism of the rules you review.
I like it when a reviewer states the good and the bads of any particular set.

I agree with D6 Junkie. No reason you can't review a game. One thing though. You should play the game at least once before you review. Reading the rules, no matter how good of a judge you are, is no substitute for actually playing the game and seeing how the rules work together.

John

I disagree, I think it is bad form to review when you have another motivation other than your impressions.

When you publish your system you should talk about all the features you included and describe why you included them. If you want to compare to competitors, then leave them nameless in your comparison and contrast.

I think it would be bad form as well.

It could be interpreted that even positive reviews could have an undertone that would benefit your wargame sales in some way…even if there was no such intention.

I would steer clear of reviews if I were you…it just saves the mud-slinging.

I totally disagree with Jlundberg on "If you want to compare to competitors, then leave them nameless in your comparison and contrast." Once your situation of 'conflicting interests' and thus possible bias is clearly stated, readers deserve to get full, complete information. Otherwise, reading your 'censored' review would be a waste of time – and so would be writing it, of course.

Besides, a lot of people have "another motivation other than [their] impressions", e.g. may want to prevent new set of rules to become widely tried at local level, then popular, then displacing their own favorite set at their club…?

I do this on my web site. I review books and figures even though I am a retailer of some of the brands I review. Of course with figures pictures are worth a thousand words…

With rule books it is a good idea to first give a detailed description of the game (take a look at my Rules Directory project for example) then add comments and criticism as a separate section.

link

Mark Severin
Owner, Scale Creep Miniatures
scalecreep.com

You should have as much input into the industry as you can.

Review, write, playtest, design, etc..

Do anything and all things you can to stay current and viable in this niche industry.

The best thing to do is NEVER reference your game in a review. If you do then the reality of your input is off target.

So review all you want but leave reference to your game out and you will be fine.

When and if you end up with a multi million dollar game company, tha twould be when reviewing other games may become an issue as your input could make or break opinions, but as a new kid on the block it is not an issue in my book.

I personally don't do this, but as long as your reviews remain objective, you shouldn't have any problems. I don't think you'll receive any flak. You're entitled to your own opinions on any other game out there, as is every designer.

Maybe if you don't do reviews, per se? How about explaining the system in question and giving examples of play, or whole games so we can look over your shoulder while you do it? That avoids value judgement on your part (and any associated bias) and allows the observer to form independent opinions. Just a thought…

I don't see a problem if there is full disclosure.

It's the internet. Bias is assumed.
-Kle.

there's no such thing as "objectivity", so review away. Anyone with any sense at all knows that a review is just that, your opinion. You will sound better if you explain as much as possible about your perspective.

For instance, you might say that you don't care for the new edition of 40K, but that you also don't favor IGOUGO for modern combat games, and instead prefer an interactive initiative sequence as in game _________. I think that's giving both an opinion/perspective and also allowing people who have no problem with IGOUGO to make up their own mind.

AA

I think as long as there is full disclosure it is fine.

Roger Ebert made one of the worst films in history and is a renowned critic.

You are in a confict of interest situation.

Anything you review, no matter how fair, is going to be tainted by this.

Possibly true. On the other hand, who cares? If the facts are up front about what Torben is doing, I fail to see an issue. It's not like he's either making money, or in a position to greatly influence people.

Frankly, if he's writing his own rules, it might be interesting to see his opinions on other rules, which bits he likes, which he doesn't, etc.

Personally, I usually avoid reviewing anything that is similar to what I do commercially. So, I don't review paper models, and I focus my reviews on figures and scenery not made out of paper.

I wouldn't mind reviewing someone else's paper models if the item was so good that I think it deserves attention from others, but I draw the line at posting neutral or negative reviews of other people's paper models because it doesn't feel right to slam the competition. It's not my rightful place to do so.

I'm in the same position with SF crawl games now, having published one of my own (Guncrawl) a little while ago. I wouldn't review any other SF crawl games unless they were simply too good not to share with others.

I guess you can distill my ramble into "It's cool to praise the competition, but not cool to slam them."

-Mel

I'd recommend against this, I think it is virtually impossible for you to appear to be impartial.

Rich

I think the question is "does the positives to your own ambitions or interests outweigh the negatives?" As a result of doing reviews and publishing a game, you open yourself up to criticism, warranted or unwarranted. Even this thread has generated a lot of heat already, and it is just on the suggestion.

Myself, I'd probably avoid the conflict, legitimate or illegitimate, in the interest of having a positive internet presence associated with a product I'm hoping will do well.

Avoid – I don't know who you are but I would not have any confidence in your objectivity whether you declared your interest or not.

I doubt that anything you say negative (even if justified) about a competitor would be appreciated by them.

Instead give full support on your website to your own product. If I was interested in buying or an owner of your rules, that is what I would expect.

Good luck, Lulu sounds a great way to go about publishing.