Editorial Swen Vincke on Being Selective about Games Journalists

[Shannow]

"seeking favourable reviews"

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

I also like how my prediction has already been vindicated in this thread alone, mere hours after making it. Don't need IGN retards if we have our very own dumbfucks who lack reading comprehension or are too lazy to read in the first place
...I mean ...
No, actually we have had these sorts of dumbfucks since I started reading the codex. Only in the past we were all when those retards popped up.
Now we're all . *sigh*
The price of being a prestigious magazine not under VD's faschist rule?

 

[Cosmic Misogynerd]

I think that focusing on the TB example is getting ridiculous. It was just an example by Swen, and there are a lot of things that can be criticized in an Old-Skool RPG. And what if there's a competent reviewer that actually finds something wrong with the game and writes about it? What stops Swen from getting butthurt and black listing said journo because, you know? "He doesn't get the game" or "He doesn't like that kind of game".

 

[tuluse]

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.

Even if that's true on a theoretical level, have you seen it happen in practice?

Also, I did say Swen shouldn't restrict access, just not seek them out.

 

[Monty]

Yes, anyone who wants to review the game will obviously review it. But there's no point spending your limited time (especially during a kickstarter campaign I suppose) trying to get your game reviewed by those who cater to different markets. Getting a negative review for your old-school game because it lacks a quest compass is completely pointless. Why shouldn't he focus his efforts on those outlets who actually reach the target audience for the game?

If journalists who appreciate old-school turn-based games think your game sucks then that's it, you deal with it. If someone who hates old-school TB games thinks your old-school TB game sucks then that is contributing nothing of use to anyone.

 

[Occasionally Fatal]

Interesting points in the blog. Wish his pictures were larger, however.

 

[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.

Even if that's true on a theoretical level, have you seen it happen in practice?

The TB example? No. But that's an extreme example. The core point was that the opinions on something of those who generally dislike that thing do have value. For example, games where companions are AI controlled. Dead State changed from AI controlled to player controlled. Some like it, some dislike it. But the opinions of both of them hold value. Another example is the player skill vs. character skill in RPGs debate.

Why shouldn't he focus his efforts on those outlets who actually reach the target audience for the game?.

Well he should because it's in his best interest (i.e. sell more copies). What I took objection to was Swen's claim (or just bad phrasing) that if someone dislikes something, he can't provide meaningful criticism of it.

Of course, like you point out there are people who review negatively because quest compass lacking, but my point was what I found to be a faulty reasoning.

 

[tuluse]

The TB example? No. But that's an extreme example. The core point was that the opinions on something of those who generally dislike that thing do have value. For example, games where companions are AI controlled. Dead State changed from AI controlled to player controlled. Some like it, some dislike it. But the opinions of both of them hold value. Another example is the player skill vs. character skill in RPGs debate.


Well he should because it's in his best interest (i.e. sell more copies). What I took objection to was Swen's claim (or just bad phrasing) that if someone dislikes something, he can't provide meaningful criticism of it.

Of course, like you point out there are people who review negatively because quest compass lacking, but my point was what I found to be a faulty reasoning.

If Brian Mitsoda was trying to find an audience that really liked AI controlled companions, and that was the market he wanted to make a game for, then yes opinions of people who don't like them would be irrelevant. In this theoretical example he wouldn't be interested in trying to sell the game to people who don't like them and reviewers who didn't like them would not be able to inform people who do like them how well it had been implemented.

Of course that example is something that is super specific, not the entire foundation of how combat works in a game.

 

[Gakkone]

Interesting points in the blog. Wish his pictures were larger, however.

There you go: http://www.pcgames.de/screenshots/original/2009/08/swen_vincke.jpg

 

[:Flash:]

Interesting points in the blog. Wish his pictures were larger, however.

They are larger. Right Click, Open Image.

 

[Occasionally Fatal]

Annoying but effective.

 

[Murk]

This section highlights his view on how reviewers "should be" pretty clearly:

Review codes really should only be sent out to people who’ll give a game a fair review, you know, of the kind that at the very least describes the game, highlights successes and failures, compares it to the state of the art, and has a subjective appraisal with the author stating his likes and dislikes

 

[zeitgeist]

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.

Objective is just newspeak for "subjective in our favour".

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

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.

So, they dropped his score because he wasn't catering to subhumans?

 

[eric__s]

So, they dropped his score because he wasn't catering to subhumans?

Jesus Christ shut the fuck up.

 

[Kirtai]

"seeking favourable reviews"

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

I also like how my prediction has already been vindicated in this thread alone, mere hours after making it. Don't need IGN retards if we have our very own dumbfucks who lack reading comprehension or are too lazy to read in the first place
...I mean ...

I understood you perfectly, I was just jokingly highlighting the irony of Larian getting flak for doing far, far less (and with actual justification) than what the big AAA publishers do all the time. It would be hypocrisy of the highest order but it's not like that's uncommon.

 

[Seerix]

Again an interesting dev makes an interesting blog article and again majority of the comments on the 'Dex consist of reading comprehension failures or whining cunts who can't stand that most people can't perfectly word what they think.

 

[Murk]

Regardless of whether people think Sven is aiming at the "I should have cherry picked reviewers" angle or not (I do not believe he is), the level of transparency in the inner-workings of the industry that Larian shows is absolutely astounding, and I think is a huge credit to their character as a developer and as people. The whole "by gamers for gamers" mentality might be thrown around in every fucking interview, preview, or review ever (by many developers) but Larian consistently backs up those claims with actual deeds.

 

[Bluebottle]

The TB example? No. But that's an extreme example. The core point was that the opinions on something of those who generally dislike that thing do have value.

I may be giving Swen too much credit, but I never read from the article that the sticking point was whether a reviewer was likely to purely dislike a game, but whether they were likely to be knowledgeable enough to understand what was being attempted with the game. That is, someone could dislike a game and still make a good review, by the standards which Swen sets forth, so long as they understood what they disliked and communicated it in a reasonably intelligent, knowledgeable manner. You can see this from the examples put forward in the article, neither of which could be considered glowing reviews, but one is at least a fair take and the other is something shat out in 5 minutes before clocking off for the day.

The upside of this is that, with the potential wave of games of this style and caliber, sites like the Codex will benefit. The niche in which we're interested is expanding not just in terms of the number of games, but in the importance of the coverage which sites like this provide for them. In an ideal world, which I don't have the slightest expectation we'll ever see, our niche will be somewhat self sufficient, both in the sites which cover it, and the developers which produce games within it.

 

[Lancehead]

The TB example? No. But that's an extreme example. The core point was that the opinions on something of those who generally dislike that thing do have value.

I may be giving Swen too much credit, but I never read from the article that the sticking point was whether a reviewer was likely to purely dislike a game, but whether they were likely to be knowledgeable enough to understand what was being attempted with the game. That is, someone could dislike a game and still make a good review, by the standards which Swen sets forth, so long as they understood what they disliked and communicated it in a reasonably intelligent, knowledgeable manner. You can see this from the examples put forward in the article, neither of which could be considered glowing reviews, but one is at least a fair take and the other is something shat out in 5 minutes before clocking off for the day.

I too read that from the examples, that trying to get a review from a site that has no interest in the type of game would likely result in half-baked review like the Star Command one. But what I also read from the article is the conflation of "no interest in the type game" and "not a fan of the type of the game", and his conclusion that both of them lead to lacklustre reviews.

 

[Zeriel]

The TB example? No. But that's an extreme example. The core point was that the opinions on something of those who generally dislike that thing do have value.

I may be giving Swen too much credit, but I never read from the article that the sticking point was whether a reviewer was likely to purely dislike a game, but whether they were likely to be knowledgeable enough to understand what was being attempted with the game. That is, someone could dislike a game and still make a good review, by the standards which Swen sets forth, so long as they understood what they disliked and communicated it in a reasonably intelligent, knowledgeable manner. You can see this from the examples put forward in the article, neither of which could be considered glowing reviews, but one is at least a fair take and the other is something shat out in 5 minutes before clocking off for the day.

I too read that from the examples, that trying to get a review from a site that has no interest in the type of game would likely result in half-baked review like the Star Command one. But what I also read from the article is the conflation of "no interest in the type game" and "not a fan of the type of the game", and his conclusion that both of them lead to lacklustre reviews.

Uhhh... how do "not a fan" and "not interested" not deserve to be conflated? If you're not a fan, that means on a basic level, you're not very interested. Sure, in future, you may at some point discover you love RPGs, but if you hate them right now, that magical quasi-possible future doesn't matter whatsoever.

All game reviews should start from an assumption that the reviewer is positively disposed towards the genre. Otherwise, what the living fuck are you doing? Whether or not the game leaves a sour taste in his mouth should depend on the game, not whether or not he thinks RPGs are a garbage dead-end that should be replaced with corridor shooters.

 

[Lancehead]

Uhhh... how do "not a fan" and "not interested" not deserve to be conflated? If you're not a fan, that means on a basic level, you're not very interested. Sure, in future, you may at some point discover you love RPGs, but if you hate them right now, that magical quasi-possible future doesn't matter whatsoever.

The wording is a bit confusing but I'm trying to go by how Swen used them. Basically what I mean is he was equating lack of knowledge of something with dislike of the thing and that that leads to not-decent review. I don't equate them and like I said previously disliking something does not necessarily indicate an inability to criticise it properly.

All game reviews should start from an assumption that the reviewer is positively disposed towards the genre.

No, all reviews should start with some knowledge of the genre so the reviewer has reference points for his criticism. His disposition towards those reference points is irrelevant because what's important in a review is how the reviewer formed his opinions, not what his opinions are.

Whether or not the game leaves a sour taste in his mouth should depend on the game, not whether or not he thinks RPGs are a garbage dead-end that should be replaced with corridor shooters.

That's quite a selective example. How about a person who has played a lot of RPGs but ultimately found the genre lacking? Is he incapable of writing a decent review of an RPG?

 

[tuluse]

That's quite a selective example. How about a person who has played a lot of RPGs but ultimately found the genre lacking? Is he incapable of writing a decent review of an RPG?

Let me ask you a question. How to do you feel about Roguey?

 

[Lancehead]

She usually makes valid criticisms when not trolling. (even though the line between them seems blurry)

 

[Azrael the cat]

The price of being a prestigious magazine not under VD's faschist rule?

[sigh....] All those extra accounts he could have banned if he'd just kept plugging away slowly, rather than going Shock and Awe on the trolls.

 

[xilo3z]

Can't believe I'm going to defend the thing that is Angry Joe...but here goes... May Codex have mercy on my soul...

OK here goes - You know Spoony's tabletop retrospective, Counter Monkey? A lot of the stories are about games he's had with *gasp* Angry Joe. Angry Joe also used to do a weekly virtual table top game with a bunch of other people from his webring/whatever his group is. He also is members of a board game group, and has made references to games they play. Has a pretty big collection of 80/90s PC games. He's pretty bro like in a lot of things. The problem being he's not a basement dweller filled with rage like us. If he wants a fun RPG - he calls up his friends and gets a game going. If he wants a nice strategy, call up friends, set up some Twilight Imperium. He's made it pretty clear he plays video games for just non stop fun. He doesn't value story, any shit, just wants to come home from work and awesome button his face. Also he wants money, so gotta play to his fans. For 98.78764% of the time, fuck him, even just embarrassing to see the preview thumbnail...but he does have that Codexness built up inside and it does peak out. We just need to convert him.

I think that's why Swen figured he was Angry RPG Bro Joe - cause of AJ's tabletop/boardgame/miniatures/classic PC gaming knowledge.