? About Negative Review Ethics

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.

Also, when I say "public trust" 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

100% behind this statement.

Getting back to negative reviews, they can be more helpful and sometimes more compelling. But inevitably, a negative review like I said is a record of disappointment, and I think the last thing we want is for a body of games criticism to be little more than a parade of negative comments and criticism. A lot of less seasoned reviewers sort of fall into this trap where they come across as more critical than they really are simply to seem even handed and "fair". This is as much of a mistake as it is to praise a game because you got a review copy. If a game makes you feel rapturous and passionate about the design, the hobby, or whatever then express it. Don't hide behind this phony veneer of "objectivity".

The thing about negative reviews too is that they're likely more helpful if we look at games writing as consumer advice. There's nothing wrong with that, but the problem is that too much of what games writing is (and in video games too) is consumer advice and not actual criticism.

For example, I absolutely think you should play Android. Maybe even buy it. But it's not a very good game, and there are a number of reasons I explained in my review of it. But I did not write the review to prospective buyers to sway a purchasing decision, and the review was not a value proposition or anything like that.

Unfortunately, even some publishers assume that negative criticism and analysis is akin to saying "don't buy this game".

San Il Defanso wrote: 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.

As long as the truth is told, and the writing is worth reading, I'll take Joe Whoever over all other options. In fact, looking at Seastrike (again, thanks, John, for tearing 90$ from my wallet and forcing me to sell a shitload of games, you wanker) I found that there was no "professional" review, and it was refreshing. No agenda, just some random dude writing about something. And it was a good review, because it was entertaining and informative.

But as soon as you start graduating to the more "professional" type of reviewer, then the gloves are off.

There never should've been gloves to begin with. The fact is that if everyone simply told the truth and wrote 200 words about every game they've played enough to have a solid understanding, the game world would be far better 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.

Bollocks. I just spent 90$ plus another 200$ on the word of some random Scotsman (who should not be trusted on general principle alone) and one review written by some random guy. EVERYTHING has an effect. That's the myth: that some guy who might be recognized by a crowd of nerds is any more powerful or influential, on a personal basis, than a random dude who writes a decent piece.

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.

Except on BGG, because there, you get called nasty names and shit. Most of the people there just want to be validated.

Also, when I say "public trust" 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.

I again disagree with this. The reviewer just needs to be descriptive, truthful, and engaging for the review to be worth reading. I don't care that Michael used to be a big champion of Ameritrash and 10 years later he's softened his stance a bit, that 2 or 3 euros are worth playing. The fact is that he explains WHY he likes/hates a game, based on its own merits, and that's enough.

A lot of this boils down to the idea that there's almost no separation between the publisher and the consumer, and sometimes between the publisher and the reviewer. The people writing the reviews often fancy themselves designers, and the content-creators partake in a lot of the online discussion of games. That's a little like Christopher Nolan responding to negative comments on The Dark Knight Rises by posting to Rotten Tomatoes. Setting aside any practicality issues, that would be perceived as extremely childish.

I personally take exception that "Informational/Promotional Sales Sheets" written by Freelance Authors (sometimes compensated with free games) get labeled as "Reviews".

A lot of what I see is no different than a person in a game store complete with the publisher's corporate issued t-shirt/uniform demoing a game, explaining the rules and telling how great it is.

People are free to write/create whatever they want, but the term "Review" has simply become diluted to cover just about anything written that has some semblance of an opinion.

More proof that no one cares about boardgame reviews nearly as much as those who style themselves as boardgame reviewers do.

VonTush wrote: I personally take exception that "Informational/Promotional Sales Sheets" written by Freelance Authors (sometimes compensated with free games) get labeled as "Reviews".

A lot of what I see is no different than a person in a game store complete with the publisher's corporate issued t-shirt/uniform demoing a game, explaining the rules and telling how great it is.

People are free to write/create whatever they want, but the term "Review" has simply become diluted to cover just about anything written that has some semblance of an opinion.

www.boardgamegeek.com/video/18708/dungeo...mmand-sting-of-lolth

Infomercials?

ldsdbomber wrote: 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.

I don't think this represents 90% of gamers at all. When I (rarely) write a review, I don't take this kind of person into account. What you described are the collectors or hoarders, and they don't really need any advice on what games to pick up or not. This type of consumer will just compulsively buy shit so they can have it for the pile.

Most of the people I recommend games to are in the hipster college crowd and haven't played hundreds of games. They, like most gamers, aren't the BGG crowd, and probably don't know what the fuck BGG is. These tend to be face-to-face recommendations, and I make hundreds of these per year. I'm certainly not familiar with all of the games on the market, and when I'm not, I fall back on the reviews of people whose opinion I've come to respect. Money doesn't trickle-down, but information does, and the reviews of guys like Barnes, MattDP, Pete, and Jesse Dean have a lot of influence on what I say, and have a much wider influence than the people who directly read these articles. If I feel someone gives dishonest reviews about a game because they receive a promo copy, I'll just ignore their opinion when advising others. It's that simple.

It's the trickle down effect that causes me to be a bit disappointed when a big name reviewer consistently fails to point out flaws of a game, or writes with the assumption that all gamers are hardcore BGG users. If someone (not gonna drop names, but they aren't FATies) consistently suggests games that are fun a few times before becoming bland, or are just shit to begin with, it has a broader scope than you think. I know for a fact that many stores will stock and promote items based on advance reviews, and through this and other mechanisms, many Joe gamers will make purchase decisions shaped by reviews they've never even read.

All of this is from a North American perspective of course, so European markets might be a bit more informed when buying. This honestly wouldn't surprise me, considering that boardgaming is probably a bigger past-time in your region, LDSD.

There is a point at which all of the "this stuff doesn't matter", "no one cares", "it's just fun and nothing else" business starts to sound exactly like how people used to talk about movies, rock n' roll, comic books, and the plays of William Shakespeare.

Thank Crom that in the past there have been people who have taken these mediums seriously, have written about them seriously, and have made our appreciation of these things better than what they were by approaching them academically. Without somebody taking comic books seriously and academically, we'd still be reading Little Lulu and not Watchmen.

People that play games and care about them beyond mindless fluff to pass the time SHOULD care about reviews, reviewers, and how games are written about. If you don't give a shit about analyzing trends and design concepts or just discussing games in general beyond "I had fun/I didn't have fun"...then why would you participate in online forums about them in the first place? Because it doesn't matter, right?

A couple of things:

1. Games Magazine's editorial stance has always been that they will not publish a negative review. Their reason is simple: they have limited space, and they would rather use that resource to help inform their readers about games they might be interested in buying.

2. The same principle also applies to reviewers who accept games. The critical resource is their own writing time. So I have accepted free games for review that seemed interesting, but decided not to review. In my case, I felt I had a contract to review the game, but didn't want to bother to spend the time on it.

So the only games I've actually done reviews on are games which fascinated me even after playing them. Android could have been one of those, but I think Barnes and I came to a pretty close agreement after playing, and he spared me the need to write it up.

OK, let me put it this way:

Guy has a hundred bucks, and likes D&D. He goes to BGG to research the Hotness, finds Sting of Lolth. He starts watching and reading.

Everything points to a brilliant game, something that will stand the test of time, will change how you view miniatures games. He sees a price tag of 40$.

So how, right now, does this guy know that he has to buy 2 packs to play the game as designed, which is double the price of what people tend to be saying. How does he know that the game isn't as groundbreaking and interesting as the pundits are all screaming?

If all that matters is "promoting positivity" and only spending time on games that you love and are passionate about, doesn't that mean that the flip side of the coin never sees the light of day?