Editorial Swen Vincke on Being Selective about Games Journalists

[Kirtai]

"seeking favourable reviews"

Instead of getting favourable reviews using bribes and threats like the big publishers do? That is so evil.

 

[AstroZombie]

IGN is the most ineffective venue for Kickstarter, they extensively covered Republique, a project up their audience alley theoretically, still it struggled to the very end.
So, avoid IGN unless you are an AAA+ publisher.

See Dennis Dyack's fundraiser for further proof.

 

[Cosmic Misogynerd]

This is a weird post by Swen. For starters, I don't think Swen is looking just favourable reviews, but for reviewers that can actually make meaningful comments about a game. People that actually knows about gameplay styles, system mechanics, etc. But on the other hand, he talks about how he shouldn't try to contact gaming sites that will give a negative review. This sounds like the stereotypical butthurt publisher.

What if there's a reviewer that actually knows what he's talking about, that have played countless of games of similar vein, and that is actually interested in giving a fair an extensive review for the game, but he criticizes some aspects of the game that indeed sucks or are unpolished? I mean what if the game actually have flaws and those are exposed? Swen will stop sending review copies to the aforementioned hypothetical site?

There is a very fine line between looking for venues that are capable and willing to make a good review (with the game' good and bad parts) and looking for site that will just give you just favourable reviews.

 

[Zeriel]

Yes, that's exactly what Swen was saying, his only interest is in harvesting a crop of glowing reviews and shutting down all those prestigious review sites that put lots of effort into critical thinking and--oh, wait, there literally is no such place. (Or rather there are such places, and they gave Swen lots of money, after obligatory round of bitching about random details turned into a lovefest.)

I think what Swen is really trying to say is that people who base their opinion on the merits of a game rather than how much $ the publisher is kicking their way are a better bet for those developers who are interested in making games more than they are into making press releases.

 

[Wizfall]

I agree with Swen.
I remember very well not buying Fallout 1 because it was rated something like 72% in the mag i used to read.
The game looked good to me but anything under 80% was usually very average (scores were much higher then) so with a score in the 70 i did not pay further attention.
And at this time internet was uncommon and magazines were almost the only way to get info.
I bought the game latter because it won a prize (a cRPG or RPG prize, unknown to me but it decided me to buy the game nevertheless).
Still disgust me thinking i could have missed it.
Another point in favor of Swen's analysis : look the shit preview of M&M X and all the stupidities said about it.

 

[evdk]

It usually quite easy to tell when people are criticizing something they are knowledgeable about and retards shitting on old school games because they are not made according to the next gen popamole template. We've been able to tell around here for ten years, I am sure you can tell as well.

 

[Kirtai]

But on the other hand, he talks about how he shouldn't try to contact gaming sites that will give a negative review.

I think his objection is to getting a negative review not because the game is bad but because the reviewer is not competent to review it properly.

Shit like "D:OS is not an FPS so 5/10, worst game evar"

Edit: Or maybe a better example would be having the game excoriated for turn-based combat because the review is a real-time fanatic.

 

[Zeriel]

There were a lot of reviews that docked Divinity 2 for its lack of quest markers on map/quest compass/some quests requiring exploration/not being obvious, rather than its actual flaws (i.e bugs, generally unfinished state). It's got to be frustrating as a developer to see your hard work get dropped down 40 points for things that are legitimate design decisions and totally fine by some people's expectation of the genre.

 

[Cosmic Misogynerd]

I think his objection is to getting a negative review not because the game is bad but because the reviewer is not competent to review it properly.

Shit like "D:OS is not an FPS so 5/10, worst game evar"

Edit: Or maybe a better example would be having the game excoriated for turn-based combat because the review is a real-time fanatic.

Yeah, I was thinking the same, but the wording he uses leaves you with the doubt.

 

[evdk]

Yeah, I was thinking the same, but the wording he uses leaves you with the doubt.

Not really. You have to take all Swen's previous articles in consideration and they don't tell you the story of a man who would be against honest criticism.

 

[Cosmic Misogynerd]

Yeah, I was thinking the same, but the wording he uses leaves you with the doubt.

Not really. You have to take all Swen's previous articles in consideration and they don't tell you the story of a man who would be against honest criticism.

I was speaking for myself.

 

[evdk]

The game looked good to me but anything under 80% was usually very average (scores were much higher then)

You mean higher than today's "9+ or failure"? What mags were you reading?

 

[Lancehead]

The problem with Swen's wording is that it implies their games get negative reviews only because the reviewer is a retard.

For example, the logic in this:

If somebody doesn’t like a certain style of gameplay, he can’t write a decent preview or review of a game that features that style of gameplay.

is just faulty.

 

[Monty]

The problem with Swen's wording is that it implies their games get negative reviews only because the reviewer is a retard.

For example, the logic in this:

If somebody doesn’t like a certain style of gameplay, he can’t write a decent preview or review of a game that features that style of gameplay.

is just faulty.

No. The logic is that if someone hates turn-based games they are unlikely to write a decent review of a turn-based game, or an honest appraisal of it in comparison to other turn-based games.

Seems logical to me.

 

[Lancehead]

I know the logic of that statement, I'm saying it's faulty. Swen says if someone doesn't like TB gameplay, then his review wouldn't be objective. But by the same logic if someone does like TB gameplay, his review also wouldn't be objective. But Swen's is fine with the latter but not the former. Case in point, citing Gragt's article.

 

[tuluse]

IGN is the most ineffective venue for Kickstarter, they extensively covered Republique, a project up their audience alley theoretically, still it struggled to the very end.
So, avoid IGN unless you are an AAA+ publisher.

It could mean no one takes IGN seriously and everyone thinks they're corporate shills. Which means publishers are actually wasting their money with them. Which would be funny, probably not true given the amount of traffic IGN generates, but one can dream.

More likely, IGN's audience are not the type to donate to kickstarters because they're happy with the games they're getting now. If they weren't they wouldn't be reading IGN.

 

[Lorica]

I know the logic of that statement, I'm saying it's faulty. Swen says if someone doesn't like TB gameplay, then his review wouldn't be objective. But by the same logic if someone does like TB gameplay, his review also wouldn't be objective. But Swen's is fine with the latter but not the former. Case in point, citing Gragt's article.

But reviewing a TB game properly means lots and lots of exposure to the genre--knowing the high points and the low points and the variations in it. You're just not going to get that with somebody who hates that kind of game unless there's some secret caste of really excellent, professional journalists hiding somewhere who educate themselves about their job whether they like it or not...

Phrasing might be off, but that idea is pretty solid.

 

[tuluse]

I know the logic of that statement, I'm saying it's faulty. Swen says if someone doesn't like TB gameplay, then his review wouldn't be objective. But by the same logic if someone does like TB gameplay, his review also wouldn't be objective. But Swen's is fine with the latter but not the former. Case in point, citing Gragt's article.

I don't think it's about objectivity, but who is going to do a better job informing the public. If you're making a TB game, the target audience is people who like TB. Having someone who doesn't like TB review the game doesn't make sense because he's not going to be able to intelligently comment on it.

That said, he is on a slippery slope here. I think what he should do is only seek out reviews by people and organizations he think will understand his product, but if IGN (or whoever) asks him for a review copy he should send it to them. To make a bad analogy, Roger Ebert was the most respected film critic for years, but PBS didn't send him copies of Nova to review.

 

[Kz3r0]

It could mean no one takes IGN seriously and everyone thinks they're corporate shills. Which means publishers are actually wasting their money with them. Which would be funny, probably not true given the amount of traffic IGN generates, but one can dream.

More likely, IGN's audience are not the type to donate to kickstarters because they're happy with the games they're getting now. If they weren't they wouldn't be reading IGN.

I think that there is one major reason aside the popamole retardation, they are mostly console kiddies, in the literal sense of the word, meaning, no credit card.

 

[Monty]

I know the logic of that statement, I'm saying it's faulty. Swen says if someone doesn't like TB gameplay, then his review wouldn't be objective. But by the same logic if someone does like TB gameplay, his review also wouldn't be objective. But Swen's is fine with the latter but not the former. Case in point, citing Gragt's article.

If someone has some appreciation for turn-based games they are likely to have played a number of them, and be able to tell the good from the bad. I don't know anyone who thinks every turn-based game is good just because it is turn-based.

But someone who hates turn-based gameplay and marks a game down because it is turn-based isn't helping anyone to tell whether the game is good for its genre or not. So the risk of bias is far greater in that direction in my opinion.

Of course in an ideal world journalists wouldn't mark something down just because it is turn-based, in the real world we've all seen that happen.

 

[tuluse]

I think that there is one major reason aside the popamole retardation, they are mostly console kiddies, in the literal sense of the word, meaning, no credit card.

That too, good point. Trying to explain why you want to contribute to a kickstarter to a parent when you're 14 must be difficult.

 

[Kirtai]

I know the logic of that statement, I'm saying it's faulty. Swen says if someone doesn't like TB gameplay, then his review wouldn't be objective. But by the same logic if someone does like TB gameplay, his review also wouldn't be objective. But Swen's is fine with the latter but not the former. Case in point, citing Gragt's article.

It's not whether or not they like it. It's whether or not they're familiar enough with it to be able to judge it competently.

 

[Lancehead]

I know the logic of that statement, I'm saying it's faulty. Swen says if someone doesn't like TB gameplay, then his review wouldn't be objective. But by the same logic if someone does like TB gameplay, his review also wouldn't be objective. But Swen's is fine with the latter but not the former. Case in point, citing Gragt's article.

I don't think it's about objectivity, but who is going to do a better job informing the public.

Both are not disparate, but linked. I mean, you do want someone to inform you with objectivity, and not with sugar-coating and bias, right?

Having someone who doesn't like TB review the game doesn't make sense because he's not going to be able to intelligently comment on it.

Again, that does not necessarily follow, because it assumes one can't have any valid reasons for disliking TB, and/or that if someone dislikes TB he must have no knowledge of games made on it (yeah, I know that's heresy here on the Codex, but that's not how arguments work). If one irrationally dislikes TB, then his review on TB is worthless, as much as, on the other side, review by someone who irrationally likes TB is also worthless.

If the argument is about informing the public properly, which I believe is what Swen was indeed trying to get at but did an overall poor job of communicating it clearly, then it's the knowledge of TB that suffices. The rest is, what the arguments are and what evidence is presented to support them. So my issue is really with how Swen phrased the whole argument.

Having said that, Larian is not a neutral party in the argument, so I don't necessarily have to assume Swen means "the best".

 

[tuluse]

because it assumes one can't have any valid reasons for disliking TB

No. If a reviewer doesn't like TB he's not going to be able to tell a potential audience that does like TB why a particular TB game is good.

 

[Lancehead]

But that doesn't indicate inability to comment on it intelligently, as you put it previously.

Moreover, he can tell why TB doesn't work in that game. Different perspective, sure, but hardly useless.