? About Negative Review Ethics

Michael Barnes wrote: Anyway, it's very easy to avoid this situation. Do your homework and review only games that look interesting to you, games that have a chance at getting a positive notice. If I'm not reviewing a game, odds are I'm not interested in it anyway and won't have to ask permission to post a bad review. Geez.

This. This is, I think, one of the reasons why we see so many positive reviews. Because of expectations and research. And that is quite okay. Some of the worst stuff you can read in the paper (but quite common in Denmark) is a review of stand-up comedy starting with the words: I generally don't like stand-up. Personally I prefer reading reviews from people who love what they review, but know enough to criticise rather than just review.

I think we're getting a bit carried away, as usual, with "our" role in things, and who our "audience" is. Give me a break, I think they explained it pretty well, and it's quite common with gaming couples, they just enjoy most games because they have their own great social dynamic. If anything it's only the readers (our) fault for not distinguishing between people who are "reviewing" in a way that as they point out is just going to pick out the fun things they liked, and not taking it any more seriously than that and reviewing in a way thats a bit more cutting, and then on to another level of critique where you're analysing things deeply

I think by far the worst thing that's happened with this "new wave" of "oo look at our moral and ethical responsibility to output academic level critique" we're all forgetting that some people just don't take it that seriously, some people aren't interested in spending time digging into flaws of a game, and many people just play games effectively to pass the time with a bit of amusement while hanging out together, and thus, tend to enjoy some aspects of pretty much any game, because they're not social retards frothing at the mouth because the game is missing some (insert some random bollocks here that sounds clever).

Reviewers have NO fucking responsibility to anyone, we are not fucking victims, they dont serve anyone, theyre not important, theyre just some random on the internet. We can decide on the relevance and credibility of a reviewer, and how that relates to your own experience. I think all this gnashing of teeth is just as much a problem as the perceived issue that some random bloke and his missus only wants to review things they like, and dont really want to slag off a free game they get. Big deal, get over it. The whole industry is built around pushing the next sale, it is what it is. None of us are celebrities or making a difference. 99.999999% of the population don't know or care that we fiddle with bits of plastic and cardboard and if they did they'd laugh. Get over it


And as for silence, well, it IS a relevant piece of information isnt it? If 100 "crap" reviewers get the same 10 games and they hate 3 of them and thus AVOID writing about them, thats 100 reviews of 7 games and 0 reviews of 3 games. Thats information for anyone bothering to fucking look hard enough. If a game is good enough, a lot of people will let you know. If its REALLY good, a lot of people who you know have valid opinions (relative to you) will also go on about it. If you hear nothing about a game or just a handful of "this is good" reviews, well Einstein, guess what, of course you're reading the reviews of the 3 people who got a free fucking copy.

This is not rocket science, and we dont need no woe is me bullshit to protect our precious industry from the evils of people who just want to get some free games and say "I quite liked the shouting". Good for them, bully for you.

When I write reviews on RD/KA! (89 items under that label- not all games, and I use the term relatively loosely; ie. 'reviews' can include surveys of something in the context of a wider article), I'm always reviewing something I've bought myself. So I'm definitely motivated to be positive, because I want to like something I've shelled out on. I have written one purposefully negative review- My first (and last?) game of España 1936 . It's pretty mild by F:AT standards. I bought into WFRP3 in a big way though, and I'm sorely tempted to do a proper hatchet job on it.

Hahaha, what a hack! Daring to push his thoughts with the plume, yet he doesn't dare to defend his own thoughts!

It's not even about your audience! What does it say about you when you have to ask if you should pee over your own work? Why even bother? A free game? My dignity is worth much more than that, thank you!

mads b. wrote:

Michael Barnes wrote: Anyway, it's very easy to avoid this situation. Do your homework and review only games that look interesting to you, games that have a chance at getting a positive notice. If I'm not reviewing a game, odds are I'm not interested in it anyway and won't have to ask permission to post a bad review. Geez.

This. This is, I think, one of the reasons why we see so many positive reviews. Because of expectations and research. And that is quite okay. Some of the worst stuff you can read in the paper (but quite common in Denmark) is a review of stand-up comedy starting with the words: I generally don't like stand-up. Personally I prefer reading reviews from people who love what they review, but know enough to criticise rather than just review.

I've read from several people that a negative is more useful than a positive one, and as someone who usually writes positive reviews for all of the reasons that have been named, that's annoying. I don't think we need more negative reviews, we need more well-written ones. A negative review from a guy who played half a game and rails on a game is no better than some puff piece from a review-copy tramp.

Ldsdbomber, I can only speak for myself, but I don't think most of us here are wringing our hands over any particular thing. It's just that when you write about the hobby, these kinds of thoughts bubble to the surface. I write 2-3 entries a week on my blog, and you cannot write that much without at least a little reflection. It's definitely true that you can go bananas trying to determine what your readers want, and in the end it's just best to write the kind of stuff you would want to read.

And as for people who don't care about the more analytical or reflective articles that discuss things like review ethics and all that, that's totally fine. But just because someone doesn't care about it, does that mean it shouldn't be written at all? There's plenty of discussion of the "fun" side of games, both here and at BGG.

Back to the original topic, I'm normally the kind of guy who hates to hurt feelings and so forth, so if I were to really torch a game and then get a PM from the publisher, my initial response would be to feel guilty. But that's obviously no way to compose yourself and write reviews. I've never had to deal with a publisher come crying to me, but it shouldn't have to be said that a review might be negative. Write what you want. The publisher will just have to put on their big-boy pants and deal with it.

no, I really enjoy reading your stuff Nate. My comment was addressed to this particular case of picking out this particular couple. It's pretty clear they're just a lot more relaxed about how they enjoy games, are quite open about it, and even explain some of this in their podcast. I don't think they owe anyone anything, and have NO responsibility to any "audience", and no requirement to serve the people reading the reviews. They can do what they like, if you're not smart enough to work out who the people are who are saying the kinds of things about the kinds of games that you're interested, well that's your fault. THey seemed nice enough folks to me, even if I wouldn't rely on them for game recommendations.

Its not at all that I dont want to read or see higher quality in depth stuff, I just think people should fucking write it. Just write good stuff, or don't. Stop writing stuff picking out examples of where other people aren't doing what you think they should. In fact, just stop pointing to other people telling them what to do at all. Write what YOU want, do as good a job as YOU* want, if you want quality, write some quality. It's this incessant whinging about every example of where someone else isnt following this newly installed mantra or your own personal philosophy I can't stand. This couple was another example, let them write or say what they want, whether they get free shit or not, write good stuff or not, or serve the "right" people or not. No one has any responsibility for anyone else but themselves and the ones they care about.

*the general "you", not pointing at anyone in particular

San Il Defanso wrote: I've read from several people that a negative is more useful than a positive one

Most times when I got to buy something, say at Amazon, or the iTunes App Store, I read all the negative reviews. Positive reviews are worthless to me, because I'm already interested in the product; I don't need to know why it's great. I need to know why I might not like it and what to watch out for. Is it a bad product in general? Are there certain aspects of it that I need to be aware of? That sort of thing.

Reviewers have NO fucking responsibility to anyone, we are not fucking victims, they dont serve anyone, theyre not important, theyre just some random on the internet.

Bullshit. A proper reviewer is someone that has established credibiilty and authority as well as a reputation for a certain kind of criticism. This is one of the reasons why it's a tragedy that there is no professional press for tabletop games. Vasel, Drake, Thrower- these are hardly "randoms". Now, if you're talking about BGG user reviews, then I'd agree with you.

Speaking for myself, I've spent a decade at this point amassing a body of work, establishing credibility,and developing ideas. I'm pretty established, and I've written professionally about games- meaning that editors-in-chief have approached me and asked me to give them content. I'm pretty sure I could walk into any game event and a percentage of people would know me or would have read some of my work. Now, am I some "random on the internet"?

You can pull this "I'm so independent, I think for myself and don't need reviews" thing all you want, but the fact remains that a good reviewer isn't looking to change your mind or make you think a certain way. They want to engage you in a dialogue about a piece and get you to consider a viewpoint other than your own.

It's shameful that there's not more smart writing about board games. I've always, from the very beginning, tried to elevate the conversation without losing sight of the fact that this is entertainment, it's something we do for fun, and ultimately it's a lost cause in terms of acheiving mainstream or cultural legitimacy.

But your entire comment points out so much of what is wrong about amateur internet writing and criticism, not just in board games but elsewhere. No standards, no ambition, no QC, no authority, no sense of responsibility.

And the fact that these people feel like they have to ask "permission" to post a negative review, reflexively, demonstrates all of the above as well while also ensuring that games writing remains, for the most part, a fucking joke.

ldsdbomber wrote: no, I really enjoy reading your stuff Nate. My comment was addressed to this particular case of picking out this particular couple. It's pretty clear they're just a lot more relaxed about how they enjoy games, are quite open about it, and even explain some of this in their podcast. I don't think they owe anyone anything, and have NO responsibility to any "audience", and no requirement to serve the people reading the reviews. They can do what they like, if you're not smart enough to work out who the people are who are saying the kinds of things about the kinds of games that you're interested, well that's your fault. THey seemed nice enough folks to me, even if I wouldn't rely on them for game recommendations.

Its not at all that I dont want to read or see higher quality in depth stuff, I just think people should fucking write it. Just write good stuff, or don't. Stop writing stuff picking out examples of where other people aren't doing what you think they should. In fact, just stop pointing to other people telling them what to do at all. Write what YOU want, do as good a job as YOU* want, if you want quality, write some quality. It's this incessant whinging about every example of where someone else isnt following this newly installed mantra or your own personal philosophy I can't stand. This couple was another example, let them write or say what they want, whether they get free shit or not, write good stuff or not, or serve the "right" people or not. No one has any responsibility for anyone else but themselves and the ones they care about.

*the general "you", not pointing at anyone in particular

Believe me, no personal offense was taken at all. Thanks for the comments.

I see what you mean about letting people write whatever they want on boardgames, and to some extent that's true. If I'm Joe Carcassonne, just some BGG user, then I can do whatever I want, post whatever I want, and feel however I want to about negative or positive reviews.

But as soon as you start graduating to the more "professional" type of reviewer, then the gloves are off. If you're important enough to get a review copy of a game (which isn't a high threshold, but it seems to be the cutoff), then you're considered to be someone whose opinion will have effect. That opinion needs to be made with the game-player in mind, not with the idea of cushioning publishers from negative criticism. Anyone who's coddling the publisher has it backwards, and that kind of thing needs to be called out.

Also, when I say "with the game-player in mind" I mean that the reviewer will be open about their thoughts, their biases, and their experience. This is the only way a review can have any meaning at all, and it helps both the reader and the publisher, since it gives them criticism that they can use later on.

Michael, I think you totally missed the point. Like I said, there's plenty of room for quality writing and reviewers, but that doesn't mean someone else can't run to the hills with their free games and write only about things they enjoyed. I'm afraid the truth is they don't owe a damn thing to anyone else, I think you're way overestimating the importance of this. There are more important things in life to worry about than making sure everyone who calls themself a reviewer somehow passes the Michael Barnes standard of international writing and analysis excellence, because THAT is what is bullshit about the internet and the people on it who think a bit too much of their worth on it.

The responsibility is on the reader to find reviewers they find interesting and worthy of their attention, not the other way round. Go out on the internet, you'll find there are fucking gazillions of SHIT articles about books, movies, music, everything. This is life. Wake up Michael. No different here. My point is, stop worrying about individual cases, stop picking out individual people, and just fucking write good stuff. Those people with the wherewithal to keep tabs on who the quality reviewers are will be listening. No one else gives a fuck. Jim & Janice have no responsibility to anyone if they get a free game and write 100 words of crap saying woo hoo we loved it. So fucking what. Thats up to them. I'm not a victim, or some pussy who needs someone to hide away all the naughty "bad" reviews. I'll make my own fucking mind up, it's just games. I enjoy some of the better articles, but you know, it's not going to change my fucking life or anything

let's all get off the high horse a bit, this is exactly my point. You're just a dude with a fucking stupid avatar like the rest of us on here. There are no "celebrity" game reviewers, no Nobel Prizes for game analysis. And there's no need to pound everyone with this demand for what you think is good writing, maybe those guys spend their time writing quality stuff in their day jobs and really dont give that much of a shit about the games but just like twirling tiles at each other while flirting.

Again, they have NO responsibility to me or anyone else. You pay your money (ZERO), you read it, and you take your choice. Stop being such a pussy.


PS
look around at the people buying and playing games. Most people are panicking about when their next preorder will arrive, while their 350 unplayed games sit on the shelf. They play games on average 0.15 times each. This is 90% of your population "gamerville". These people dont want or need quality writing. They just want to hear everything is great. This might suck balls, but it is what it is, the hobby is what it is. There's no need to ride round on your white horse trying to save us, because most people just don't care, and those that do are already finding the quality stuff and reading it.