? About Negative Review Ethics

Schweig! wrote: Check out "Open Your Heart" by "The Men".

I'll give it a listen tonight.

My thesis is that this kind of review, here by our very own Jesse Dean
boardgamegeek.com/thread/829911/getting-in-on-the-ground-floor

is the kind of review that's actually more damaging to the hobby. It's well written, contains plenty of smart buzzwords and is well structured and laid out. But read between the lines, clearly this game is pap, another "meh" dreck of a euro with "a twist" and a unique theme. This game does not need to exist, it's not even out yet, it's more fuel on the fire of "buy buy buy new new new" phenomenon, because he's just not bold enough to call a spade a spade, read those last few sentences, it's there if you dig enough, this game sucks, and is pointless, and he knows it, but hey, lets add it to the other thousand so so rethemed boring euro games that already exist and refuel the cycle of yet another new game to buy
in a years time no one will be talking about this game, just like all the others of its ilk

Jesse's well known, liked, respected and writes articles that on the whole are well done, well structured and well produced. HE is the guy who should be telling people when a game sucks, and not Joe & Janice "we get a few free games and we like everything and we'll explain why in 45 seconds".


edit: and just to be clear, when I talk about "damage to the hobby" I mean only the current obsession with quality output and its effect on future development of games and ideas. At the end of the day, the wheel will keep turning, these games will keep coming out, people will keep buying them, playing them once (at most) and moving on. If the market collapses it will be economics driving it, not a sudden realisation that too many of us are buying things that serve no real purpose. So if you're going to set yourself up as a "voice of experience", then the onus is on you, not on the obviously amateur guys to be a bit more direct.

Compare and contrast this review (and similar ones of The Manhattan Project for example), with the stuff that Chris writes on illuminating blogspot. He doesn't pussy around trying just to describe games in a clever way but at the same time failing to be brutally honest about the complete lack of innovation and merit, he calls a spade a spade at the same time as writing in a more "elevated" way. A lot of this new wave stuff just sounds like the same stuff that people like Greg Schloesser and Tom Vasel write, every game is good, everythings a solid 7 out of 10. Meh, meh, meh. All this is, is more "Meh" with a few more fancy buzzwords. Sorry, that's just how I see it. Too much waffling for the sake of sounding clever about too many games that aren't (yet) worth writing about, and far too much pulling of punches when it comes to games that are just "meh", probably because you got a free advance review copy.

bah humbug

SuperflyTNT wrote: I was pointed toward a podcast where the podcaster said, in short, that if he doesn't like a game that he was asked to review by a publisher, he contacts publishers and asks if they want to have a negative review published.

Is it just me, or is that the dog asking the fox if he should bark or not when the fox is about to raid the henhouse? I mean, isn't it the whole point of reviewing to...I dunno...review a game for what it is? Alert people to the pros and cons?

I'm not being hyperbolic (for once), I'm serious.

dicehateme.com/2012/07/the-state-of-game...culling-and-critics/

28:10 or so.

I'm surprised there is much discussion about this. Once this alleged reviewer crossed the line and asked a publisher if it would be okay to do a negative review, he became a shill. A shill who doesn't even have enough self-respect to at least get paid cash. To hell with him.

ldsdbomber wrote: My thesis is that this kind of review, here by our very own Jesse Dean
boardgamegeek.com/thread/829911/getting-in-on-the-ground-floor

... it's there if you dig enough, this game sucks, and is pointless, and he knows it, but hey, lets add it to the other thousand so so rethemed boring euro games that already exist and refuel the cycle of yet another new game to buy
in a years time no one will be talking about this game, just like all the others of its ilk...

...every game is good, everythings a solid 7 out of 10....

bah humbug

This right here is a problem with people's perceptions of reviews in gaming culture (board and video games) as I think both industries have evolved to the point where most games aren't actually bad. People recognize enough about game design and mechanics to not design a truly terrible game but since gamers have been playing games for so long good isn't good enough. The game you linked to sounds like an utterly generic worker placement game. Because we have seen Caylus, Stone Age, Lords of Waterdeep, The Manhattan Project, etc. come and go Ground Floor fails to stand out from the crowd. I highly doubt it's an unenjoyable experience but it's definitely not novel nor innovative. If it had been the second worker placement game ever made I'm sure we'd all be hearing much more positive press.

That's why one has to read reviews critically much as you have done here. Read between the lines to see what's really being said about a game. The reviewer is not being disingenuous by saying the game is good. It is technically a fine game. Your experience (and the author himself) is telling you that it's not a particularly great game.

As for asking a publisher permission to review? I understand how you want to have a cordial relationship with publishers but that's going a bit too far. Giving them a heads up might be appropriate but you should publish what you truly feel about a game or stick to only reviewing games you like. If the relationship is more important to you than speaking out then feel free to not publish anything at all on games you don't like but don't ask permission, that shows a lack of respect to both yourself and your audience.

I once wrote a lengthy and somewhat negative review of a new boardgame here at F:AT, even though the game designer is a friend of mine. I didn't tell him that I was going to do the review, or tell him about it afterwards, I just did it. He saw the review and really appreciated the feedback. The next time that he got together with some people to playtest a couple of his game designs, he invited me to participate. He moved away not long after that, but I would like to think that he would have continued to recruit me for playtesting sessions.

Devin Faraci on criticism:

Film criticism is not consumer advocacy. The intention of the best film criticism is not to tell you how to spend your money come Friday night. The best film criticism exists to explore cinematic art and to contextualize it. All criticism is biased, and that's because part of criticism is opinion. But it isn't the only part of criticism.

You can easily apply this line to any form of media criticism.

What's more, criticism can be fun to read! I read critics with whom I disagree because of their crackling prose, their great humor or their terrific insight. I'd rather read a well-written pan of a movie I love than an incoherent embrace of the same film. I'd rather be challenged to defend my own thoughts on the film than have my notions held up. And I'd rather have that challenge come in the form of really great, evocative writing.

I rarely agree with Devin. Too often he's a contradictory reviewer who is interested in trolling fans of certain movies, but I agree with him on the role of criticism. Any reviewer, professional or otherwise, should be appalled by the notion of asking permission to give a negative opinion. By only giving a positive opinion or nothing at all, you do a disservice to the community discussion. You might as well call yourself Billy Mays and start selling Super Putty as opposed to reviewing games.

I've never tried writing a review of a game. The lexicon and structure tends to put me at a distance from the topic. Too often, I'm afraid that what I have to offer to the conversation isn't relevant or worthy of discussion. Although, as a consumer of both reviews and games, I don't think it's hypocritical to ask for reviews that merit discussion. It's disingenuous to insist that if you want depth from a review to write it yourself.

Source: badassdigest.com/2012/07/18/the-devins-a...fend-film-criticism/

ldsdbomber wrote: My thesis is that this kind of review, here by our very own Jesse Dean
boardgamegeek.com/thread/829911/getting-in-on-the-ground-floor

...bitch moan bitch moan bah humbug

Lee, that's almost EXACTLY what I told Jesse, privately. This wasn't a review, it was a PR piece. He needs to not do "impressions" and talk about substance, or he's just fuelling the fire.

Thanks Pete, I agree, if youre going to style yourself as some kind of higher level commenter (and JD is being disingenuous if he says that's not how he sees himself) then he needs to be a lot more selective about whtat he puts out there. Knowing how to describe mechanics in 3 sentences containing words clipped from Julian clary Lawrence's book of asperger game words should not be used to hide what is the eurosnoot equivalent of a Tom vasel puff piece (tom is at least honest about what he puts out there, and I respect his efforts). I just think this kind of meh meh review passed off as critical review is onlŷ sending the wrong messages in so many ways. First, it's not much more than puff piece, I wonder how many times he's played it, he says he's not going to play it again, it's dressed up like something to aspire to when it's not, and I think this hand wringing going on and as you see here with the start of this thread, everyone starts getting held up to these imaginary standards . Theres no shame in writing a puff piece on a free game, or writing a crap review cos you're excited, or illiterate or both. Let's stop trying to make everyone conform to this fucking idealistic bullshit, it's like when I say this everyone assumes I'm not interested in quality output. Well fuck yeah, I am, please show me where it is, I don't want to read abut the moaning, I don't want everyone to feel compelled to get on board, let everyone feel they can get involved, we as readers can decide who is relevant to us or not. I'm just so tired of this almost cliquey like feeling going on now, but hey I'm just a miserable old git so don't worry about it

good call Idsdbomber.

I actually i find reviews like the one linked to useful not because of what they do say explicitly, but because of what they leave out, or put between the lines as you say. But i agree, for your average consumer this kind of review isn't useful.

sfunk37 wrote: This right here is a problem with people's perceptions of reviews in gaming culture (board and video games) as I think both industries have evolved to the point where most games aren't actually bad. People recognize enough about game design and mechanics to not design a truly terrible game but since gamers have been playing games for so long good isn't good enough. The game you linked to sounds like an utterly generic worker placement game. Because we have seen Caylus, Stone Age, Lords of Waterdeep, The Manhattan Project, etc. come and go Ground Floor fails to stand out from the crowd. I highly doubt it's an unenjoyable experience but it's definitely not novel nor innovative. If it had been the second worker placement game ever made I'm sure we'd all be hearing much more positive press.

That's why one has to read reviews critically much as you have done here. Read between the lines to see what's really being said about a game. The reviewer is not being disingenuous by saying the game is good. It is technically a fine game. Your experience (and the author himself) is telling you that it's not a particularly great game.

I think this is the most interesting thing to come out of this discussion. If a game is derivative or has a pasted on theme but is still fun to play, does that make it a bad game? I tend to like most board games, with some exceptions. I like some more than others, but I still have a good time playing just about anything. For this reason, I should probably never write reviews, as I'll be just like all those other random TOSsers.

I think we could solve this debate by simply separating "product reviews" from "critical analysis" and simply walk away. So long as you know which one you're reading, you can take what you need from them.