DEATH ANGEL in Review (plus, another banning!) Hot

Petersen can be a hothead and it seems he does love his games, passionately. But this is certainly the big problem with the free copy games review model in general.

This game was a surprise to me. There's a lot of game there for a low price. One thing I'd point out is you say that the Marine dies if he rolls less than the number of Genestealers, but he dies if he doesn't roll HIGHER than the number of Genestealers, so an equal roll will still kill him. A minor thing, but it does underscore how lethal they are.

Ooh, that's right, I did misword that...I probably also should have stated that it's a 0-5 die, so one Genestealer can kill you on a 0 or 1 result.

I love FFG games, but Christian Peterson needs to grow a pair and accept the fact that his "babies" will not be universally loved by everyone.

I'm finally sold on this game. Even walked over to Borders on my lunch break just now to see if they had it. The local game shop didn't have Death Angel in stock when I was looking around last week, but I'm sure that I can pick it up at the Event Center this weekend.

I've been blacklisted from FFG for two years. Which, in my opinion, is awesome.

I enjoy your reviews, Michael, and this one is no exception. However, I can kind of sympathize with where CP is coming from when I read a passage like this -

"I’m very pleased to see a firm that has unfortunately become synonymous with expensive boxes packed full of superfluous components and over-elaborated rules turn out a $25 small box title filled not only with compelling, action-packed gameplay and drama but also with plenty of SPACE HULK flavor and concepts."

- in almost every FFG review that you do. I'm sure that Peterson gets that you think that the big FFG games have become overblown with rules and components, and that their prices have gone up recently while component quality has gone down. All fair points to bring up. I just don't get why you need to take a jab at FFG repeatedly even in reviews about games that you like. You're not reviewing FFG, you're reviewing Death Angel. And the extra little sideways comments or backhanded compliments (like the one above) make it seem like you've got an issue with the company beyond the specific game you're reviewing. You've even done it in game reviews that have nothing to do with FFG.

FWIW (not very much), I think the Battles of Westeros blow up was mostly about the fact that you liked the game but couldn't bring yourself to endorse it because of your perceptions of FFG's ability to support the game. Again, this is a good discussion to have, but seems to be outside of the boundaries of a "game review" IMO. If a reviewer is reviewing a movie, they shouldn't let their opinion on whether the studio that produced it can be counted on to release a sequel or provide good extra content in the DVD release influence their recommendation of the movie. It's outside of the context of the review.

I'm sure CP understands that there are reviewers who don't like his games, and yet he sends them new releases anyway. Frankly, you have given more positive reviews to recent FFG games (Death Angel, Runwars, MEQ, BoW) than negative (Horus Heresy,.......Android?), and yet you get cut off. Why? Maybe it's because CP thinks you have enough of a chip on your shoulder about the company that prevents you from being able to review the game on the game's merits alone. The quote above probably doesn't help.

Not trying to come down on you. I look forward to your articles every week and think that your tastes in games probably mirrors my own pretty closely. Just trying to be the advocate for a point of view that might not get represented in this thread.

Clockwirk, I totally understand where he's coming from- he doesn't want to give out free games to a pro reviewer that isn't giving his company a handjob every time the opportunity presents itself. It doesn't matter how many times I criticize FFG for the various reasons I've laid out over hte past year, that does not excuse the implication that "heretics will be punished" so to speak. Nor does it excuse that this is essentially personal matter, not a matter between myself and anyone else at FFG.

It would be one thing if I were constantly saying "FFG sucks, their games sucks, their designers are shit" and so on. But I don't do that, because it's not honest and it's not true. I criticize their _public actions_ and _obvious business strategies_. If I, as a games writer, can't comment on those things then I need to just pack it in and do something else.

As for WESTEROS, I felt that it was very important as someone whom people look to for consumer advice to be clear about the marketing strategy of the game and its format. I review products just as much as I review creative designs, and that is a situation where the product review was very significant.

It's also important, I think, to indicate when a game like DEATH ANGEL shows what I feel is more of a positive direction for the company to take. To do that, you've got to explain why it stands out from things that aren't (in my opinion, of course) right.

I appreciate your comments, I always do, but I would warn against looking at this situation without taking into account the professional issues involved and the aura of impropriety that surrounds it all.

This is, once again, something that would NEVER happen in media journalism elsewhere. Media companies ten, twenty times FFG's size don't do things like this. And, ironically, companies a tenth or a twentieth the size of FFG don't do it either. I have _never_ been in a situation where I felt my integrity was compromised in recieving free games for review until now.

Matt,I would be curious to hear why you're off the list too- PM me offline if you don't want to post it here.

Shellhead- I bought my copy at Barnes and Noble. For some reason, it was $20, which is $5 off the retail printed on the box.

Were you advised specifically that this was the case or is this an assumption?(An assumption that is probably bang on mind you)

Perhaps CP believes that your reviews are two pages too long when your opinion could have been summarized on two sentences...resulting in a bloated, overwritten and expensive review.:P

Just in case anyone out there cares I'm available to write whatever anyone likes for free shit, just PM me with your version of "my" review and I'll get'er done. I like booze but even soup cans are Ok for free.

I always get Barnes & Noble and Borders mixed up, even though I go to both on a regular basis. B&N is fine, I will be hitting the office supply store next door anyway this week.

It's clear that Battles of Westeros is not just a game, but a game system. If Michael had failed to address the viability of the game system in his review, it would have been incomplete.

No, I was specifically told that it was FFG "bashing" and my comments about DESCENT. As for WESTEROS, I was also specifically told that was the cause for the first blacklisting. I actually contacted Mr. Petersen and apologized to him because I did feel that I had not given the game a fair chance and that's why he sent me an advance copy of it, so that I could play it and make a more informed decision on it. I don't believe he got what he expected.

I would expect that my comments about DUNGEONQUEST (which, ironically, included me applauding FFG for making right an posting the original combat rules as well as alternatives) also figure into it. I've actually only reviewed three FFG titles this year- RUNEWARS, WESTEROS, and DUNGEONQUEST. Of course, we've talked a lot about price, FFG's position in the marketplace, their strategies, and so on here at F:AT as well.

I dunno, no offence but on the banning I can't say I'm really surprised. All the stuff about 100 dollar boxes etc at times seemed to far overgrow the reviews (positive or negative) to the point of appearing obsessive. THAT seemed personal (I say seemed, not necessarily was).

I don't doubt that you love FFG games in general and it's true you have praised them many many times, so maybe CP is a hothead, but to me it seemed that whole conversation seemed out of proportion, repeated ad nauseum, and as a regular reader I was bloody relieved that whole thing finally dropped off. That's just my view.

That said, I don't think receiving free games should make anyone pull any punches or prevent them from writing anything negative.I still would like to believe that CP or anyone else in the industry does NOT expect sugar-coated reviews. But they also don't expect their company to be repeatedly slammed.

The separation between reviewer at GS and casual poster here is kinda tricky because you are undoubtably well known and people take a lot of stock in what you say and DON'T always differenciate between what you write here or at Gameshark (espcially when it comes to remembering what they read where).

It seems to me, a reviewer, or opinion piece writer has to be a bit careful that they will be quoted out ofcontext for those reasons, and being the reviewer on gameshark and the 'rowdy' voice here seemed a bit like having your cake and eating it too. But it's difficult:I don't think you should censor yourself either.

in case you are wondering, I am not trying to pick a fight, nor am I in any way a ffg fanboy - this is just the honest impression I got. As a reviewer you should shrug it off (which it seems you have done and just continue doing what you do ). You can't please everybody and not everyone is going to react the same. So if CP wants you off, so what? He can't stop you from doing what you love doingand, as you noted at the end of the intro, he can't stop you from reviewing ffg games.

Now,off to the review.

The separation between reviewer at GS and casual poster here is kinda tricky because you are undoubtably well known and people take a lot of stock in what you say and DON'T always differenciate between what you write here or at Gameshark (espcially when it comes to remembering what they read where).

This is a very good point, and it is something that is definitely a challenge as a pro writer. But that being said, I should still be able to speak my mind without fear of reproach.

So if CP wants you off, so what?

This was exactly the conclusion I came to last night after a good beer.

Well about six new posts popped up beofre I could post mine but this is utter bullshit.

"he doesn't want to give out free games to a pro reviewer that isn't giving his company a handjob every time the opportunity presents itself... Nor does it excuse that this is essentially personal matter, not a matter between myself and anyone else at FFG.:

That seems WAY over the line.

Hell hath no fury like a reviewer scorned.

I think Cockwirk hit it bang on, I'm sorry to say.

Cockwirk? Freudian slip?

Bush league. That's all I can say. The review stream exists for nuthuggers only I suppose.

NO slip, just writing too fast. Though the earlier conversation about Pete's hot neighbor...

Seriously, it probably isn't fucking fair to ban anyone but as I said I am not surprised.

At the same time I don't think you can assume that ffg only wants sugar-coated reviews... that would be a really sad state of affairs. I don't think you can claim they want only handjobs from reviewers pro or otherwise, that would be just too much.

He didn't send Barnes a review copy? Wierd, I recieved two.

...and a fruit basket.

Steve"Please stop Mr.Peterson, You're embarrassing me."Avery

The Fort's been LONG overdue for drama.

SEXCELLENT!

That has to be the most positive review of this game I've seen yet. I have to say that I'm awfully surprised, it's also apparent that your understanding of the language you seem to be creating to review games is becoming more consistent and poignant as you refine it. You may be the best Board Game reviewer out there and certainly the most academic.

I would consider picking it up but the fact it's co-op has really put me off of this title.

I have no fucking clue what the deal is between you and FFG, that's a world I don't fully understand, but I look forward to your review of Mansions of Madness either way.

Well, I hope someone at F:AT is receiving review copies. I'm an unabashed FFG fanboy - my ever growing games collection is dominated by FFG titles - and this is due in no small part to the exposure that FFG games get here at F:AT.

"also apparent that your understanding of the language you seem to be creating to review games is becoming more consistent and poignant as you refine it."

Seconded. I've really like Barnes' work over the last four months or so. One thing I've appreciated at the FORT lately is a lot less drama. Friday freakouts have almost become a thing of the past. But regardingt the reviewer/company relationship- in an ideal world this kind of shit shouldn't happen. But it does. So the integrity is in moving past it and the reviewer saying okay fuck it, I'm still gonna write reviews as I see fit.

Not interested in re-hashing this whole conversation but... Michael's opinion about the viability of the game system had everything to do with Days of Wonder's inability to support Battlelore, FFG's (possibly misguided) acquisition of that license, and then FFG's (probably misguided) decision to tie BoW into that brand. There is nothing in FFG's history to suggest that they will fail to continue a game series that they start, yet Barnes couldn't recommend the game based on his perception of how the game would be received by the fans. It's relevant to FFG's marketing department, but doesn't make the game any better or worse.
Again, I have a difficult time imagining a reviewer in a different medium using similar criteria in their reviews. Does a movie reviewer inform his review on the strength of the production company? No. Does a book reviewer modify his opinion of a book based on the cost of the book? No.

Like I said, I think discussions about companies and the board game business on a large scale are important to have, but when they seem to color everything you write, it's no wonder publishers would be hesitant to send you games.

Michael, you bring up gamey abstractions but don't go into detail. Which ones were you thinking of specifically?

Sorry vout the Hell comment - it was out of line. Bit if you say stuff like the company expects handjobs...

:( anyway, won't add more, now reallyoff to the review.

CP is rather crazily defensive about press for his games. He trolled me in a BGG forum about Warhammer 3rd....and then 1 year later is revamping the line along the exact lines of my criticisms.

My Civ showed up today, and I may brave the wilds of Mercer to try and get it in. The game looks SO good. None of the trepidation I felt after fully understanding the Android rules, so I think Kevin might have nailed this one.

Not sending you copies actually seems rather petty. It does just jump up and down and twirl its moustache and say "He is not our mouthpiece! This will teach him...Mwah hah hah!"

Part of my post will now look like re-hashed reply due to another clockwirk reply while I was writing:

Barnes:
I love your work, but I'll admit that the FFG bashing did get old for me as well. I've read and insane amount of video game reviews and a good deal movie reviews. The serious or pro reviews for both these industries give passing mentions for the studios that produce the piece. These reviews critique the piece being reviewed and they bash it if they have to. But I've never read serious reviews where they wipe the floor with the company rather than the product.

We can all agree that nothing should prevent you from disclosing your opinion; otherwise your review is just becomes entertainment rather that informational. I especially enjoy that you don't tone down your language and are very opinionated. But I have to agree with clockwirk in that probably the only thing you could do better is to focus only on the product, not the company. After all a game review should help the reader decide whether or not he should purchase a game; not whether or not he should purchase a company's stock.

Something besides the point but also relevant is that while colorful bashing makes for an entertaining read, there are real human beings behind every product. Keep that in mind the next time you write your next pubescent rant you try to pass off as a "pro" review. (If that made you feel a little shitty and defensive you have a rough idea how it feels to have your "babies" bashed publicly.) I think a responsible pro reviewer should weigh entertainment value vs. getting the creator of a product to start taking anti-depressants; but that's probably just me.

Sorry, Scissors. You apparently haven't watched the state of affairs in the video game industry. I hardly read their opinions anymore because they end up softballing a review in fear of pissing off advertisers, which are the game developers themselves. The K&L kerfuffle is proof of that. Barnes states an opinion and doesn't pull any punches, which is perfectly fine for me.

You tend to get better reviews from people who are NOT related or connected to the game industry simply because they don't have a mien of an agenda. Sure, you can have people bash a game they've never played, but they are easily spotted and ignored. Is Barnes really connected to the game industry? Yes and no. Yes, he has a gig on GS, but that is primarily discussing boardgames on a videogame website. He does talk about video games from time to time, but the majority of the time he's talking about the boardgames. Does he regularly get advance copies from producers? From what I have seen, no. Judging by that, I hardly call Barnes a pro or anti FFG fanboy.

He appreciates the company, but at the same time he also calls into question some of their marketing and business practices, and I see no problem with that. I find that type of attitude far more refreshing than the chorus of reviewers giving the same milquetoast reviews, yet giving games 8's 9's or 10s.

I sometimes second-guess my own opinions about games that I bought with my own money. Once having forked over the money, I tend to hope for the best out of a game and look for ways to get people to play it, even when there are glaring flaws. On the rare occasions that I've reviewed games here at F:AT, I've tried to go back and look for flaws to mention, since no game is perfect.

Rliyen, you're right I don'tknow anything at all about the vid games industry.

I wasn't saying that Michael should pull his punches but I wasn't suprised that FFG or rather CP apparently saw some of his material as unfair bashing. And reacted. That was the distinction between casual posts and writing for GS I was trying to make. Here, things can go off the rails a little bit but it can bounce back and bite him in the behind as a reviewer.

Both Clockwirk and El C. said it far, far more eloquently than I: I think it's enough to separate the product from the company in the reviews. I also think, if you are going to tackle tougher issues beyond reviews you sometimes have to get to the source and make sure you present multiple sides of the argument as well as the side in question. I never saw FFG get space here to give their point of view. I am assuming, that as a corporate entity, they weren't interested but still...

CP and Michael are now clearly not on the same page.... it's too bad... is it petty and unfair? Probably. If Michael or FAT by extention stopped reviewing FFG games completely it will be the readers who lose. And that is soemthing I would definitely miss.

Maybe CP and MB should PM each other and sort this stuff out.

Michael Barnes wrote: "I’ve been writing about board games that FFG is one of the best companies in the business, if not the best games publisher of all time."
The former, but not the latter. That title belongs to GMT. (Oh, bugger, does that mean I'm off CPs christmas card list.)

And why the hell do we have a deliberate 30 second delay on the gameshark link? Good review, but I've still zero interest in getting the game.

Regarding the banning, and it not happening in media journalism elsewhere. Firstly, I think it's because gaming is far, far smaller and more amateurish. Secondly, I think it's become acceptable in gaming culture, because that's the mindset created by TOS, someone says something negative and they get mobbed by the drones. It's a small step from that to companies punishing negative reviewers.

scissors wrote: "I never saw FFG get space here to give their point of view"
CP has posted here in the past.

I wasn't saying that Michael should pull his punches but I wasn't suprised that FFG or rather CP apparently saw some of his material as unfair bashing.

Oh I agree, but Peterson has to realize 1) don't take it personally and 2) if the bashing's consistent, then maybe, just maybe, there is a kernel of truth amongst the rock salt of criticism.

There will always be detractors about almost anything. Just look at the TOS's handling of the GW's IP issue and the Bggers's "protest" to rate SH a 3. Or how about the "joke rating" of Agricola and how the producer flipped his shit? Peterson's acting, in my opinion, the exact same way and it doesn't cast a very good light on him at all.

Trolling a member because he critiqued your company's rendition of WH 3rd? Taking someone off a promo listing because he brought up the subject of a game's viability? That's weak sauce, man.

I see nothing wrong with writing off Activision due to Bobby Kotick's douche-baggery.

Nothing to sort out.

CP comes across as pretty petty here. Barnes digs on Descent but continues to sing the praises of TI:3. What, he can't have negative opinion on any 'coffin' titles?

Like Barnes said, the offending comments seem to have been in F:AT posts _not_ in his published reviews.

So, we can't talk about how a company operates on this site? If you can't discuss the 'this and that' of companies, games, personalities, etc in an independent forum, where can you discuss it?

I don't think Barnes needs to sort anything out with CP. I like a lot of FFG as well, but I've felt Barnes has been fair in his paid-for and published reviews on GS while this site gets some of the 'off the record' chatter.

I think a lot also has to do with where Barnes comes from. Coming from a punk rock background labels and their practices etc are common discussion and fair game for the bands and fans. I would expect no less critique from Barnes with boardgame companies.

Good or bad, right or wrong, Barnes has a refreshing voice amongst the boardgame reviewers. Do I agree with his GS pieces all the time, hardly. Has he said things in the forums I've had issues with, absolutely.

Whatever.

Barnes better stop watching what you say at home and at your gaming table. Apparently, you can't have a dissenting voice.

Barnes never reviewed HH, and the Android review was hardly scathing, so the 'banned because of negative reviews' angle is a furphy. Apart from that fantastic post.
He probably just got sick of the FFG bashing outside of reviews. No one likes to be told how to run their company.
Anyway I don't see the big deal, and I'm not sure why it got revealed publically. None of our business really. Just claim games you buy on your tax return as a business expense (assuming tax laws are the same as over here) and they are practically free anyway. Or review other stuff, there is hardly a shortage of games going around.If gameshark demands FFG coverage get them to give you a game budget.

Barnes, I recall thinking that you were a bit over-the-top in your bashing of Westeros upon merely hearing a little bit about it when it was announced. I could understand CP taking some issue with that, though you did politely retract a lot of that with your later review. But I agree that he doesn't really have much right to complain about what anybody says about Descent in an online opinion forum... if anything, he should take that to heart to realize that a lot of people just don't like that game so much, anymore. And a lot of people still do like it, so why focus any attention on the detractors?

Death Angel has definitely become a favorite of mine. Surprisingly tactical and meaty for what is a relatively simple card game. Some people complain about the randomness of the die rolls and event cards that switch everyone's position, but I find that you can deal with everything that comes up and still win, more often than not.

Clarifying my Westeros comment a little... You had every right to express your personal opinion the way you did, especially as a first impression gut feeling kind of thing, and I think we all appreciate that we should feel free to do that here. But I can accept that CP would read that and feel like, ah gee man, can't you even give it a chance before bashing it so harshly? I'm willing to cut him some slack on getting upset about that, knowing that the advance buzz can be a factor to how sales will be. And I think "Michael Barnes" commenting personally on a forum thread probably does carry a little more weight from his perspective than with most other people, even though it shouldn't be given the same consideration as an actual review. That's just the nature of whatever level of "fame" or notoriety is attached to your name and personality based on what you do. If Roger Ebert popped into a film forum to comment on a new release, it would be a pretty big deal, even if it had nothing to do with his official printed review later.

Well, they've sent me a copy of Civ, although I told them I probably wouldn't have time to play it. Luckily for them my sudden and impending unemployment means that I will actually have time so I should have a review up before Christmas.

MB, I agree that the expectation of positive reviews looks pretty nefarious on the part of FFG and I agree that a ban on sending you stuff seems like an over-reaction. However, it's certainly true that the impression I built up from reading your material this year was that you'd become quite anti-FFG as regards their quality and business practices. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, and I admire the candour with which you've been prepared to state your feelings - all I'm saying is that to external observers it's quite likely that your output has appeared a lot more negative than perhaps you realised.

I'm puzzled as to how you think this sullies your personal integrity. FFG didn't tell you they expected positive reviews in exchange for stuff, and even if you did know it you didn't bow down to it and instead offered your opinions, supported by argument, as a good reviewer should. There's no way this impacts on your reputation or integrity.

All that said, I really don't see what the big fuss is with this game. It's fun enough, but nothing special. Having read a number of other people's opinion on the subject I'm still not sure what it is exactly that they're seeing in it that I don't.

I must be good because my death angel win ratio is like at 80%. I'm either good at mitigating poor luck or that die fucking loves me.

That's my win %, too. I think it's generally pretty easy to win, perhaps too easy, but it doesn't feel too easy when you play because you often have to squeeze a lot out of the abilities you have and the opportunities available (some of those location abilities are very powerful) to make it work out.

My win record was in that range at one point, but then I realized that I was doing a rule wrong, I corrected the rule and the next few games didn't go as well for me.

The rule that I missed is that support tokens can only be used by a marine to their front facing, where I was using it for the back as well which greatly helped out.

"If gameshark demands FFG coverage get them to give you a game budget."

Bingo.

"Apparently, you can't have a dissenting voice."

Oh no,you can and in some (or many) cases you should. But the world is an unfair place, board game journalism (from what I've read here) apparantly takes place in an uncertain environment where the relationship between company and reviewer can be muddied so the outcome might be petty or less than professional ie. a blacklist. By all means,stick to your guns. But accept,too, that no one is under ANY obligation to send you anything free, just as you are under no obligation to review their products.

F:AT is not'home' or technically off the record and I'd say and MB is not just anybody. He's one of the best known bg reviewers. And with that comes great responsibility. (ok the last bit's a joke).

"Barnes has a refreshing voice amongst the boardgame reviewers."

Not when he goes on for months playing the same ol' record, IMO. Thankfully, he has moved on.

Fact is, he could have kept quiet about this and given CP his view on the matter in private.
Instead,it's in the title of the review. And that says something too. But I respect what he said and respect that he had a beer over it and came to the conclusion he did. As a reviewer he'll survive with or without FFG and vice-versa. And review FFG products when he feels like it without any sense of obligation.

"The Descent of Descent" was a Gameshark article. Doesn't really matter whether it was a professional article or a forum post, though. It was completely fair -- even balanced by the end by admitting it's probably still finding fans.

I'm surprised Barnes was still on FFG's press list until now. Although he still hasn't trashed HORUS HERESY in a review yet.

Anyway, DEATH ANGEL is fucking amazing. Great game all around and I have played lots of big box games with worse gameplay or evocative action.

My win rate is at 100% (5/5) but we always roll well. We even had one classic game where the last surviving space marine on the last die roll won the scenario before getting slain (it was the end room where you have to fire the missiles).

My only complaint about the game is that the autocannon sucks when compared to the flamer or the guy with the whirlwind attack. The autocannon team is the worst one in the game and that shouldn't be the case. Here's my ranking:
1. Flamer (Purple)
2. Psi-guy (Grey)
3. Whirlwind attack guy, with the jet-pack who dies on a '0' (Yellow)
4. Sergeant Lorenzo, who can kill lots of genestealers when defending and conduct "inspiring" kills (Blue)
5. Dude with hammer (Green)
6. Autocannon (Red)

Wow. Great review. Wish I could add more but I haven't played the game...yet. This part stuck out for me:

"In fact, while playing the game there have been more than a few times when I felt that with some modifications to the executive theming, it would probably be even better presented with the Aliens license. As in, Jim Cameron, Vasquez, and “they mostly only come out night, mostly”.

I love Space Hulk but I'd drop the warhammer theme in a minute if it could be replaced with Ripley, the fork-lift laoder thing and the Bitch.

Strongly disagree. Apparently we no longer believe that AT games are designed theme first, and that a game's theme could easily be replaced with instead. DEATH ANGEL only seems as it could work with an Alien theme but that is only because it is based on SPACE HULK which is in turn based on Alien. Most of the charm of the game comes from combining the space marines crazily awesome attack abilities (autocannon excluded). Sure, Psi-guy could be replaced by "guy who throws stun grenades" but how lame would that be? And I don't care about Warhammer 40k at all.

I've decided that seeing Christian and Barnes fight makes me sad. It's like Jesus and Santa duking it out. =C

But which is which?

My fucking die must be loaded 'cuz I consistently roll zeroes. I don't think my Wolvie SM has ever survived using his special attack.

Good question, ska_baron. I got an answer for you: neither. Barnes is Rudolph and we're on the island of misfit toys :)

BAHAHAHA!!

Yes, I'm shamefaced. I hope he doesn't get stuck with that.

Schweig! wrote: "My win rate is at 100% (5/5) but we always roll wel"
Still using that die with a 6 on every side, huh? :D

"Still using that die with a 6 on every side, huh?"

It wouldn't have skulls on it.

Oh wait, yes it would.

Does a movie reviewer inform his review on the strength of the production company? No. Does a book reviewer modify his opinion of a book based on the cost of the book? No.

Yet these are issues in reviewing video games. Or buying a car. Books and movies do not require continued support. A miniatures gaming system does. And with any product, cost versus quality and content is an issue. I understand the sentiment of what you're saying, but it's not quite right.

I'm with Doc- my die rolls zeroes like a motherfucker. I actually checked to see if maybe Christian Petersen made sure somehow that may store-bought copy had a die with an extra zero.

My only complaint about the game is that the autocannon sucks when compared to the flamer or the guy with the whirlwind attack. The autocannon team is the worst one in the game and that shouldn't be the case.

Yeah, that is kind of weird. It's one of those things where I'd like to hear from the designer what their schematic was for weighing out weapons and abilities.

But accept,too, that no one is under ANY obligation to send you anything free, just as you are under no obligation to review their products.

Absolutely 100% on the mark.

I'm puzzled as to how you think this sullies your personal integrity.

It's the same kind of feeling I might get if I eat a brand of vegetarian chik'n nuggets for years and find out they're flavored with ham fat. I was taken off the list specifically for having opinions that did not jibe with what FFG expected- not even for negative review comments. It makes me feel dirty for accepting their free games because I wasn't aware that it was assumed that I would maintain certain attitudes about FFG, its products, or business direction. I also didn't realize that Mr. Petersen was the sort to make these kinds of issues personal.

If gameshark demands FFG coverage get them to give you a game budget.

That's just not how it works- not for my column or the video games writing myself and other writers do there. There is also no demand for FFG coverage- I have carte balnche to write about whatever I want.

Michael, you bring up gamey abstractions but don't go into detail. Which ones were you thinking of specifically?

Well, the game is essentially one big abstraction of another game concept so all of the actual tactical manuever and positioning is sort of reframed. The narrow corridors of the board game are translated into the single-file, left-or-right card positioning element. You've got to have a guy in front of a terrain tile to use it, which is sort of gamey given the relative level of detal. The restrictions on actions is very gamey in a sense, but I also think it's essential to maintain the tension and tough, cooperative choices you've got to make in the game.

Make sense?

Good question, ska_baron. I got an answer for you: neither. Barnes is Rudolph and we're on the island of misfit toys

Ken B. is Yukon Cornelius. Matt Loter is Fireball. Thrower is Herbie. And you're the water pistol that shoots jelly.

Yes. You know I hit that bitch.

So what reviewers does FFG send games to? I've never read any reviews of their games that weren't here or at BGG.

That's actually a really good question. I'm assuming that it's some of the bigger bloggers, some folks on the BGN crew, probably some international magazines, and Tom Vasel. I doubt many folks working outside of the gaming press get their stuff.

I hadn't really thought about it, but yeah...I see reviews of their stuff here and at BGG and BGN, that's about it. There may be some roleplaying sites (RPG.net or something) that get their press copies.

Now see, thats what I call a win/win.

Steve"morally bankrupt"Avery

I wear my Yukon Cornelius badge with great honor. It's better than Yanni.

Okay seriously those that have an 80% or better record with this game please write up some strategy posts cuz I've yet to win even one game out of 5 or 6 that I've played.

To be fair to CP, Barnes, this is a little weaselly.

The links to your Gameshark column get a full front page article spot on F:AT. I don't see anyone else getting that space simply to direct traffic toward content they wrote for another site (but I'm sure Superfly would love it if he did). I'm assuming you do because you're a member of the editorial staff here, so while your column isn't technically syndicated on F:AT, it might as well.

You can't really blame CP for not distinguishing between the Mike Barnes who writes favorable reviews of FFG games on Gameshark, and the Mike Barnes who continually criticizes FFG in the comments section for articles that are basically published here in a roundabout way.

@Tony

Here are some general hints:
- Don't roll "0"s. Seriously, if you roll crap no strategy is going to save you.
- Let half of your marines attack each turn. Never all of them, as this would leave you with your pants down next turn.
- You can move a guy by having another guy change place with him. This way it's possible to move and attack with one marine in the same turn.
- Get a support marker on all of your special guys ASAP. If there's a choice let the standard marines die. You can take risks with these guys when defending, but never with your special dudes. (I've seen the flamer die on the first turn defending against one genestealer with a reroll marker.)
- Try to activate the doors every turn.
- Don't have a large group of marines facing the same direction. One of the events lets two genestealers pop up in the back of one space marine. Choose whirlwind guy if he can attack next turn. Also usually it makes sense to have the marines of one team face different directions.
- Keep your special guys in the middle, two standard marines at both ends. These will usually still be able to attack with their range of 2 and if an adjacent special marine is threatened let them change spaces.

Hints per team:
- Purple: Keep flamer adjacent to red space. Flamer should always have at least one support marker when attacking. Use the special support ability often to move genestealers to your advantage. (I.e. alternate between support and attack. Move while good should only be used when things are quiet.)
- Grey: Use the force field often, i.e. every 2nd turn, on the biggest group of enemies not adjacent to the flamer (if he's able to attack). The psi attack is also powerful, esp. when having many support markers available to spend.
- Red: Keep autocannon in the middle of the squad. Usually it makes sense to have him face in the opposite direction of the flamer/whirlwind guy if available. Since he usually has a choice when attacking, either try to kill single genestealers or reduce the number of genestealers in a group depending upon who is defending and how many support markers that guy has. (Survival rate against one genestealer: 66.7%, 88.9% with reroll, against two: 50%, 75% with reroll.) Double-activate the doors when possible.
- Blue: Have Sarge standing in front of the red or orange space. Use intimidation on genestealers you won't be able to kill this turn. When attacking, start with the one of your marines who has more support markers, so that if he hits you can place a support marker on your second dude.
- Yellow: Use the whirlwind attack often and DON'T ROLL "0"s. Since he can possibly attack three out of the six adjacent spaces, you can use him to dispose of separate groups of genestealers. Note that he can even attack enemies in his back. Use the jet pack to move many marines at once.
- Green: This is the only dude who can survive attacks of more than 4 genestealers so use him accordingly. Note that the green standard guy can also use the dead aim ability, which makes him the best of the standard marines. Roll many "4"s.

Wow, this exploded while I was driving home.

FFG hates me for this review:
http://drakesflames.blogspot.com/2008/06/crappy-game-review-mutant- chronicles.html

Rio Grande hates me for this review:
http://drakesflames.blogspot.com/2008/07/board-game-review-change-horses.html

Atlas cut me off for this review:
http://drakesflames.blogspot.com/2008/06/board-game-review-seismic.html

They're not the only companies who won't send me anything any more. I also know that there have been companies I scared off when I sent them links. I always include a negative review in the links, so they can't say I blindsided them. Sadly, that negative review makes lots of publishers more than hesitant to send me games.

Interestingly enough, I've panned the shit out of games from Eagle Games, Asmodee and AEG, and they still send me stuff. Which is cool, because there are lots of those games that I've really enjoyed. In fact, when Asmodee sends me games, I get pretty excited, because they produce some bad-ass games (Cyclades, Claustrophobia, and Ghost Stories, to name just a few).

The only way I still get a regular diet of review copies is because I have a couple sponsors, retailers who send me stuff, and in turn I promote their sites (shop Dogstar Games and Noble Knight! [that's me promoting]). When I wrote for Knucklebones, the magazine sent me review copies, but that was a long time ago, and now I have to hustle them up myself. A few companies understand that you might be able to buy a good review with free games, but you can't buy credibility. If I softshoe a game review to get more free shit, I might get more review copies, but a positive review won't be worth half as much if everyone knows I'll sell my opinion for a fifty-dollar board game.

Barnes, I would say you should be proud of being cut off. It means you're not a sell-out for freebies.

Also since people can't stop not talking about the game: This episode smells a bit like Stalin and Trotzki to me considering that Barnes was a FFG fan from the beginning.

I do believe a distinction should be made between his gameshark column and what he writes here in the forum, simply as there's a distinction between the articles a film critic writes and what films he watches with his family. FFG didn't send Barnes games because he's a cool dude, but for use with his column. Nobody gets paid for posting to the forums, neither do they have much exposure and as such FFG should not consider these when evaluating their work relationship with Barnes.

Simmy,
Thanks for the strategy tips, there's a couple of points i hadn't thought of. Cheers.

OK, then why are we discussing Death Angel at all? Nowhere in this "article" is the game actually reviewed.

I like your reviews Barnes, but have to agree with the fact that in this medium, the distinction between public and private is a little too muddy between here and Gameshark mjl makes an important point in the relative syndication the Gameshark articles get on this site. Additionally comments here reflecting a discussion of the Gameshark article bear no distinction between your review and the follow up commentary.

As a private citizen you are free to say whatever the hell you want here and I wouldn't have it any other way but, I think it must be said that the public and private is in no way distinct with the current FAT model and presentation of Gameshark articles.

For instance, if you give a review of a game on Gameshark (ostensibly as a professional reviewer) then proceed to participate in a discussion here panning a company or its practices, especially in the commentary directly connected to teh same article, there isn't any distinction between the public/professional and the private you.

The distinction is hardly clear and as much as i may enjoy the opinion and writing I have to say there is little if any difference between the professional review and personal commentary.

This game is $20 at Barnes and Nobel. And I love it.

Oh, and in the odd event I ever become a serious writer about games, just blacklist me now. Descent, Tannhauser, World of Warcraft, and Android are like the Mount Rushmore of dog turds.

For instance, if you give a review of a game on Gameshark (ostensibly as a professional reviewer) then proceed to participate in a discussion here panning a company or its practices, especially in the commentary directly connected to teh same article, there isn't any distinction between the public/professional and the private you.

So what? Am I expected to restrain opinion here- or in a paid, professional review for that matter- to appease a game company or its leadership? Am I somehow prohibited from discussing FFG or another company with honesty and sharing opinions becuase I also do a professional column? That's ridiculous.

Are there really some of you who do not understand that forum comments and discussion are a very different thing than a published editorial or article?

I do agree that, like I said, it is a challenge having both pro writing out there as well as forum posts because the two can be conflated. For example, I was told by my FFG contact that F:AT writers would still be getting review copies so we were "covered". But that has absolutely nothing to do with my work at Gameshark, which is what Mr. Petersen's actions directly affect. Further, if the issue was that I had trashed review copy games without warrant or abused that privelege at Gamehark, then it'd be a lot less pernicious. But it's about forum discussions and things that occured outside of Gameshark, which is why didn't post any of this over there. So things do get mixed up but at the end of the day, both what I write here, at Gameshark, or wherever else is my honest and uncompromised opinion so do you feel that one or the other should be contained or censored in order to appease Mr. Petersen or others in the games business who might take umbrage at my criticism?

No. If it's a question of whether or not it's a douche move on Peterson's part, you'll get no quarrel from me.

Dude, we live in an age where you can get fired over shit you say on Twitter and Facebook. Do you really think that difference still means anything?

Let me ask you this; if Gameshark had a comments section underneath your articles, and you'd said all these things about FFG there, would you still expect the guy not to take that as seriously as what you said in the reviews themselves?

I tired to resist commenting on the FFG thing because I think the thread should be about the game, but that's lost now due to the article on this page that is clearly not about the game, which sounds cooler then I originally thought. If I ask Anthony real nice he might bring it over for me to try out some day.

But the internet is a tricky place these days. Everything is published and it's hard to discren what we should and should not be doing here. People are fired over facebook acounts, a man running for government in the NDP here in Canada got removed from the party and the running because of facebook photo's of him with sexy ladies (touching their bums!!). All of these incidents are unrelated to their actual jobs, but it effects the public, it effects their peers perceptions of them, and it effects the people who post it themselves.

Times have changed and the new morality will take awhile to figure out as we struggle to understand what the internet does to us as a society. CP has his methods (which admittedly can seem pretty unpofessional sometimes) and so does Barnes (who also can seem unprofessional IF you don't differentiate between him here and at GS). Mike, it's true that you have beaten the dead horse of "bloat" and "fancy mechanics" into the ground a bit much and it's also true that CP is a sensitive guy trying to make his company continue to succeed in what is traditionally a very tough market. These issues will creep up alot over the next few years as the art of reviewing is stolen from acedamia and returned to the people through the internet.

Both you and CP have to figure this out and it is unlikely that you'll be coming to the same conclusion, as it is a hotly contested and modern dillema.

And it's not true that movie reviewers don't get shunned for bad (supposedly biased) reviews. Armond White has been shut out of screenings from several movies for his controversial reviews. He's the most famous but I've seen it here in Canada at the CBC a few times where I have some connections. Billy Bob Thorton really fucked over some reviewers there once.

I think the best thing would be for you to sit down with CP and have a beer. I bet it would be a very enlightening experience for both of you.

I don't think either of you are wrong and I think it's a non-issue (although it does make your job harder). I think you should have not told us and that this thread may be the final nail in the coffin box for you and FFG. Which is a shame because they are still the best game publisher out there right now and there is a damned good chance that Mansions will be my first big game purchase since Runewars... and that's because they are the publisher for this type of gamer.

I guess I'll have to accept, from reading everything I've read here, that this ban in the end is personal... and that is very unfortunate and a douche move as mjl says.

Sorry to hear that they cannot handle the truth abotu their own game systems. It's no surprise though considering they have to know Descent is basically a dead game system that got bloated and out of control from its original vision.

Deathangel is fine for it's price but once you have played it a couple dozen times it loses that fun factor. Pretty much made me appreciate a true game of Space Hulk more.

If only FFG was as smart as you.

have played it a couple dozen times

That's a great reccomendation in and of itself.

Mmmm...I eventually got a copy of Descent to see for myself what everyone was arguing about.

Holy shit!! thats a lot of bits and pieces and I completely agree it took us (both never played before) 3 hours to get through one and a half rooms. It was only later that I read Space Ghost's (I think) comments on playing the overlord differently (not spawning every 5 seconds). I don't like games where I have to play a certain style to not bog the game down...to me that's a problem with the system.

Too many tokens, markers and unwieldy line of sight rules, looks like it would be fun but turned out not to be....still my game buddy's 10 yr old liked it a lot...maybe I was never the target audience.....

Looking at this from CP's point of view: if I was at FFG I have to say I'd feel a bit stupid about routinely sending games to someone who seemed to have an increasingly anti-FGG bias. It might be unprofessional, but I think it's human to come to the conclusion that, ok, the reviewer seems to have problems with our approach, why should we 'feed' him copies? If he doesn't have the courtesy to see that he is going overboard on a particular issue - fuck it - let him buy his own titles.

We all have a right to speak our minds but no one says a reviewer has a right to free material. And I don't think cutting someone off is exactly the same as claiming the prodcuer wants to see only golden reviews, maybe just a bit of self-reflection or pause.

So, I'm betting (now)it is personal: CP simply got tired of seeing his product criticised in the forums and didn't differenciate between pro reviews and regular comments because at the end of the day why should he? They both carry the MB label.

From what I can tell the Gameshark article is linked to from F:AT, but there does not seem to be any link back to F:AT or a mention on Gameshark that Mike writes here as well.

Therefore anyone - probably mostly videogamers and casual boardgamers who found his column - who reads the (usually glowing) reviews for FFG games that Mike writes on Gameshark probably won't see his 'personal' comments about different aspects of FFG's business directions he writes on F:AT. And those few who read the reviews and also know about F:AT won't have their opinions changed much anyway by what Mike writes - in fact they're more likely to argue back at him.

Summary

CP is getting his games reviewed (usually positively) on a mainstream (compared to the fanatical niche site called F:AT) website. The same reviewer is giving other personal opinions on a FFG-friendly-fanboy-gratuitous small website and getting called up over it as well.
Where do you think FFG's final position is - in the red or black for exposure ?

It doesn't sound very well thought out to me.

I suppose I should chime in on this.

A few points:

FFG has the right, as many have said here, to send review copies to whomever it wishes. This sort of thing happens in the videogame world at times, but usually due to poor reviews (which the publisher deems unfair) or if a site breaks an embargo. I haven't seen a forum post lead to this sort of thing before, but it wouldn't surprise me if it's happened.

That said, the vast majority of videogame PR will send review builds to websites who, regardless of how they have reviewed their games in the past, have an audience and a voice. So, if Joe's Videogame Blog and Mechanical Repair rips Red Dead Redemption, well, who cares? If IGN does it, Rockstar isn't taking IGN off the press list.

While Mike's column at Gshark isn't IGN, that column has lasted an incredibly long time. The first Cracked LCD ran in June of 2007. Mike hasn't missed a week since. That is truly remarkable in an industry where columns have a shelf life of about six months either due to poor traffic or the writer simply runs out of things to say.

The reason for its longevity isn't because Mike has that sultry southern Owen Wilson drawl. After three years I certainly consider Mike a friend, but the column continues because it gets read. A lot. When we run monthly numbers Cracked LCD is routinely in the top 10 articles for the month, depending on the topic, and this is on a site that receives well over a million impressions a month. Regardless of what anyone thinks of Mike, he's clearly one of the prominent voices in the boardgame industry, and FFG knows it.

Also, you have to consider that Mike has given FFG games Game of the Year in 2007 (StarCraft), 2008 (BattleStar), and 2009 (Chaos in the Old World). 2010 will likely be the first year where an FFG game fails to win GotY, and honestly, no FFG game deserves it unless Civ makes a late push, which is certainly possible.

So to take the black magic marker of doom and cross his name off the press list, a guy who has routinely praised FFG's games for years, and who has a big audience that he talks to every week all because of a forum flare up...that's weird. It just is. I have never seen anything quite like it.

Still, FFG can do whatever it wants. The company is under absolutely no obligation to send anyone a review copy of a game. It won't affect the column either way and it's not like Mike is going to lack access to FFG products. Personally, I think it reveals more about FFG than it does him. Barnes is opinionated, and sometimes doesn't know when to shut the hell up, and he likes to bang the drum slowly on a topic until the drum is broken. We all know that. But he's also fair, knowledgeable, and imminently qualified to review FFG games, and it's FFG that is basically taking its ball and going home. So that's on them.

Re: Gameshark not having a comment section. Ok, um, yeah. I started at Gameshark about five years ago and the technology was about 10 years old THEN. The fact that we still have solid readership I think says a lot about the writing talent we have assembled there (including Mike, fwiw). But anyone who says the website looks like recycled dogshit--I agree. Oh man do I agree. I'm under NDA not to talk about the future, so we'll leave it at that.

--bill

Really appreciate you weighing in Bill. I find having some data to sink into rather than opinion to go a long way in heated exchanges like this.

Youre good to point out his GotY stats as well how well his articles do on your site (which, since they're impressive stats, makes his GotYs actually worth a damn instead of mine).

So each are entitled to do their own thing, yadda yadda yadda.

It still just feels like mommy and daddy fighting. Don't make me choose. =C

Dude, we live in an age where you can get fired over shit you say on Twitter and Facebook. Do you really think that difference still means anything?

At least in the U.S., that just changed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/09/business/09facebook.html?_r=4&partner=rss& emc=rss

The National Labor Relations Board said even Facebook posts fall under the First Amendment as protected free speech. More to the point, employees are allowed to talk jointly about their employer and working conditions, just like employees are allowed to form labor unions. Employers who punish employees for statements about the company would be violating the law.

Last year, I attended an HR law seminar, and attorney running the seminar warned us not to look at Facebook or Twitter pages of employees or even job candidates, because decisions made after viewing those pages could expose us to discrimination suits.

Any employer who isn't a dumbass can get around that and fabricate another reason for dismissal. If I'm running a company and some dude rails against the ugly dress my wife was wearing an the Christmas party on FB I'm finding a way fast to get rid of him without directly citing the online comments.

In this day and age too many people are letting it all hang out there and not realizing how damaging it could be.

For instance people send out resumes for jobs without thinking that their latest tweet from the stripclub or pictures on FB of them chugging down a keg don't connect ar ejust blind.

That being said this whole FFG/Barnes thing is bushleague and says alot about the garage sale state of the boardgame business.

Doom. Doom do you hear me? If Barnes and FFG doen't make up with kissy faces all of ameritrash is DOOMED!!

Steve"Prophet of Doom and local troll"Avery

I would prefer if youtube didn't have a comment section.

As far as I'm concerned, Youtube doesn't have a comments section. It just some weird data dump from an experiment involving chimpanzees, Tourette's, and hallucinogens.

It's too late, Steve... CP's doom track has already filled and now he has awakened. Start of Battle: Barnes discards all review copies.

MJL: Just to be clear, if I never saw a single reader that came from F:AT, it wouldn't affect me. I don't get legions of review games, and I doubt I ever will. I do it for fun (and, to be honest, initially as an exercise to determine if I had a recycling blog, if that would help grow my business) and the only review games I've gotten are:
A couple of Small Box games
AEG's Myth: Pantheons
Crossroads at DarkLion Pass (And they're about to wish they didn't)
Bastion's Ex Illis (Which I have universally shit on all over BGG)
a D3 Set of heroscape, and that came from one of my "syndication partners"...I doubt WotC will ever send me shit after my article about them being a fucked up company)
So, sure it would be nice to have F:ATties over at my site as "followers", I'm content with the thousands of reads a month I get over 10 websites, including my own. If I got only 10, hey, that's the way life goes.

Now onto my main point: Michael.
You cannot possibly expect that if a company continuously sends something to a journalist and that journalist constantly takes little pot shots at that company, that they'd continue to want to work with you. Personal or not, it's business. Even if you write excellent, high quality reviews, if in the public eye you deride that company, they're not going to want to continue to tolerate it with their treasure or support.

That being said, to retain your impartiality, which you do very well, you have to tell the truth, painful as it may be to that vendor. You've kept your integrity, and although I think it was a Pricess Bride level "classic blunder" to publicly announce this episode on a front page article at a major news outlet, that's your call. If it was an attempt to indicate impartiality, it was unnecessary. We all know you and respect you, and we all know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you're nobody's bitch. Well, maybe Loter's bitch, but he's tough so I can grant you that. :P

I'm just surprised that you're surprised, that's all. You're a very smart guy, and I can't imagine that you'd expect a big company to continue sending you review material when you've had a hard-on for them, at least of late.

I'm with Drake. Fuck'em if they don't want to work with you. It's not like you're going to stop writing and get in a fetal position in the corner of a dark room or something...they just lose some exposure for their products, and the payoff is minimal because I think on balance, you've given them far more sales and free marketing than you've hurt them with your commentary on their "bloat" and "excess".

Let's just pretend for a moment that it does. Now you've got a regular contributor who writes a lot of nice things about a company's games, but who also routinely posts fairly harsh criticism of the company and their games (even the ones of which he's written favorable reviews) on the same page where he wrote all the nice things.

Are you really going to expect that company to simply ignore everything he says in the comments section just because it doesn't appear in the actual reviews?

Bill, thank you for your input. I've refrained from commenting myself, as my point of view is colored from my many years working in live theatre, where critics span the spectrum from merely snarky to down right brutal. However, even the thought of not comping them the best seats in the house, no matter how gut wrenching vicious their last review was, would be considered absolute madness. As human beings we all sympathize with CP as well as all the designers and artists of games that are criticized. As a human being I empathized with the actors every time I had to hold the curtain for the Wicked Bitch of the West who was running late from her dinner engagement, but I still held the curtain. It's helpful to hear from an experienced, professional in the business that cutting off a widely read reviewer is considered as bizarre in the gaming world as it is in the theatre world.

n.

From The Onion:

PORTLAND, OR—Regal Lloyd Center 10 Ci?nema employee Justine Terrin told reporters Friday that a customer had deeply hurt her feelings by complaining aloud about the price of popcorn. "I was absolutely shattered—what on earth would make a person say something like that?" said Terrin, recounting how the customer turned to his friend and said $5 for a small bag of popcorn was "a little ridiculous." "The most devastating part was that he obviously knew I could hear what he was saying, and he didn't even care. It shook me to my core." Explaining that she was so distraught she had to take the rest of her shift off, Terrin told reporters she was considering working in another field such as telemarketing

I agree that there's almost zero differentiation on this site between Michael's personal comments and his prominent display of his Gameshark articles. The lines are blurred, at least here, one what's part of the review and what's not. I don't blame CP, if I had Michael on the press list for my company and he continually trashed games and my company without playing them first (see: Battles of Westeros) it would be a no-brainer.

Let's try that again...

Fixed. The internet is forever, as I've found out the hard way.

At the end of the day, while I can see how CP may not agree with what Micheal writes here, cutting off review copies seems to be not only rather petty, but depending on who else got cut off , possibly backfire, akin to the IP mess GW ran into on TOS. HOW a company handles things is just as important as WHY they are doing what they are doing. I could see some reviewer who got similarly cut off retaliating by still reviewing games but turning on them and giving them bad reviews. While a free copy of a game is nice, it certainly isn't required. It's not like Top Gear getting the latest Ferrari supercar because to buy it would be so expensive.

Shellhead, that issue hasn't been settled yet. The NLRB plans to argue that before a judge, and that's about communications with co-workers, which doesn't necessarily apply in this case, especially for an open Facebook page. Either way, that's labour law; First Amendment doesn't apply.

Bullwinkle, that makes more sense. I suppose the reporters don't quite have a handle on the implications yet.

I'm amused by the irony.

Barnes made his name through pointing out that reviewers should pay for their games.
Then reversed his opinion.
Now he's been cut off.

Life is funny.
Steve"The Comedian"Avery

I agree that there's almost zero differentiation on this site between Michael's personal comments and his prominent display of his Gameshark articles.

This is really kind of a silly argument. For one thing, there is no distinction in my opinion, I do not have a different opinion or viewpoint here than I do at Gameshark. I may frame them differently according to venue and audience and there are some issues or subjects. that I don't feel are worth discussing in a published Gameshark article, but I think it is VERY clear what is Gameshark and what is F:AT. All you need to do is to look at my weekly post and see that my Gameshark articles APPEAR ON ANOTHER WEB SITE. The discussion happens here, yes, but that's _here_.

if I had Michael on the press list for my company and he continually trashed games and my company without playing them first (see: Battles of Westeros) it would be a no-brainer.

For one thing, I don't continually trash FFG's games or the company. I may be extremely critical and uncompromising, but I do not continually trash the games or the people involved in making them. I don't know how many times I've intentionally included disclaimers to the effect that I support FFG and that I want to see them do great things, even when I'm coming down on them for things that I don't agree with or that I feel aren't for the good of us as consumers or for the hobby. Time and time again, the record here at F:AT (and at Gameshark for that matter) shows that I've had a lot more nice things to say about FFG than bad regardless of recent comments I've made- that are not somehow marginal or outside of what are becoming increasingly common viewpoints about FFG.

It's a sad state of affairs when being critical of a major company and calling into question what they're doing is "bashing" or "trashing"...funny enough, when it was BGG on the recieving end of my "bashing", that was OK. FFG gets a pass according to some people. Maybe I should have picked on Wizards of the Coast instead.

BGG bashing was pro bono though.

I really should invoice them at some point.

Where is Steve Weeks when you need him?

When I was reviewing music for the Milwaukee daily paper we were expressly prohibited from accepting review copies or comp'd tickets precisely to prevent the appearance of impropriety. The paper pays for it, you write about it--it's the only way to both maintain actual integrity and avoid participating in personality wars.

I'm sure someone already pointed this out in the cascade above, but I'm not in the mood to wade through more of this. I do think it's odd that you think the videogame press isn't tainted by this sort of shit. They've had scores of significant "pay for play" scandals over the years. It's not quite 1950s radio payola, but it's fucking close. Kudos to Bill Abner if he's managed to not suffer any backlash from the big game companies for negative reviews--he'd be one of the few. Most other outlets simply learned to pull their punches for fear of losing their advertisers.

However, I would like to take credit for your banning since it was I, the grumpy old grognard, who started the Great Wave of Descent bashing when I pointed out that two of the most unpleasant gaming experiences I've ever had were hours upon hours of Descent's optimization exercises and the absurdly choatic pointlessness that is Cosmic Encounter. It was only then that people felt free enough to stand up and say what so many believed but were far too cowardly to admit: (1) Descent ain't all that and a bag of chips and (2) Dogmatix is clearly a complete moron for hating Cosmic Encounter...err...well, I'd still like to consider #2 open to debate.

But...hey...I'm glad to see that my personal hate had such broad ramifications. ;D

Can you honestly say that you don't see a difference between posting a thread in the regular forums that links to your column, and having your post appear in the space reserved for the site's main editorial content, where it has to pass review by the site's staff?

If there's no difference, then F:AT's front page is nothing more than an anything goes chat forum.

I hated Descent before it was cool.

Dogmatix, I'm right there with you on Cosmic Encounter.

I made several posts sometime back about how it's actually a Euro and not AT at all. I got a lot of flack, but still stand by that statement.

Besides that, I find it a highly overrated. Definitely not worth the cost of admission. What are we at now, $110 for a card game?

Dude, Barnes is a member of the editorial staff, so in his case the primary difference is some one spell checks what goes on the front page, but he has to spell check his own forum posts.

Michael, there isn't a difference, though, when you're the guy behind the mic. Here's what I see as the perfect analogy:

Dan Rather gets in front of X million viewers and extolls the virtue of the Obama administration's policies. The camera turns off, but the mic doesn't. He then continues after the show, on his time, to an intern, to talk about the fact that even though he likes the policies, he thinks Obama is nothing but a puppet with George Soros' hand up his ass, moving his lips. That audio gets on the web, and before you know it, Big O is not doing interviews with Dan Rather.

The mic is NEVER off when you're talking on the internet. If you put something here, on a public forum, you have to expect that someone will read it. I mean, I'm a fucking NOBODY and I have publishers approach me from time to time based on something I've said about a game here and elsewhere. The big wigs read this stuff, and to assume that somehow "it doesn't count" because you're here, and not at Gameshark, saying things that might be viewed as painful to the vendor....that's naive at best, and I think deep down, you have to admit that yeah, you probably said some stuff that wasn't quite professional or quite nice about FFG at one point or another. Thinking that it's "off the record" is the height of unrealistic. Face it, Mike, you're a celeb, and the paperazzi are watching. Remember that unlike many, you get paid for your opinion, and with that paycheck comes the fact that people will always be listening. Look at Kanye West! :)

It's a strange, Big Brother world we live in, and everything you write is being assayed and scrutinized by the publishers whose products you review. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's reality.

Somewhere back there someone called this a "niche" site. Really? What traffic does this get versus ToS? What volume of the Gameshark traffic comes from the link here on FAT?

This is what I was talking about a couple months ago.

I don't really have an opinion on CP's actions (every time I use the abbreviation 'CP', I think of Panzerblitz; this is what level of geek I am.) It's his company. He can do what he wants. Obviously, Barnes isn't going to be impeded by it. It's not like he's been forbidden to purchase, play, or review FFG games.

But I agree with Clockwirk and Scissors and others: If you keep bashing, someone is going to react at some point. And it has been bashing. It's been tiring to read. And when someone brings it up like I did, it's immediately doused by a bunch of seemingly passive-aggressive "I continually say how much I respect FFG" commentary. Saying you appreciate a company's games does not alleviate he doesn't want to give out free games to a pro reviewer that isn't giving his company a handjob every time the opportunity presents itself. Come on. That's not "honest". That's just boorish. If you want to have a decent relationship with someone, you don't toss that kind of crap in their face.

I agreed with Barnes about Battles of Westeros. I thought it was an attempt to be a system game a la 40K and it would become overburdened and fail just like Battlelore eventually did. Systems like 40K depend on more than just components. I, too, was disappointed that the third revelation of the 3 mystery boxes on the website was something like that. By the same token, I thought there was little foundation for the accusations leveled at FFG as if the creation of said product was less a game than a scheme to relieve people of their money. That's how it was presented. While you can take issue with CP's actions as being out of line, you can say that they were a response in kind to what's often been presented to FFG in the past couple years.

The case of Descent seems to be an example of a transition that has occurred on F:AT as a whole. Back when this whole thing started, it was a reaction to BGG's obsession with Euros; games that were 'clean' and minimalistic in rules and components. The audience here favored games of yore like 2nd Ed Talisman, utterly glutted with rules and cards and boards and a playing time of hours on end if you tried to squeeze everything in. But that's one of the most heralded games of the AT genre. So what if it takes an entire afternoon to play? That's the point! And, yet, here we have a good chunk of the so-called AT audience trashing games that are basically Spawn of Talisman like Descent for the fact that they have tons of fiddly rules and counters and pieces and whatnot. We have supposed regulars trashing CE, one of the most random, wonky, and yet primal games of the modern era. When did BGG co-opt Fortress: Ameritrash?

There's something to be said for good design. Even people that favor games drenched in theme don't necessarily want to play Talisman, where starting with high strength and dumping the first magic item found in the City to become the Arch-Mage is the predominant path to victory, so long as you don't run into a random demon or dragon from the Adventure deck or get turned into a toad or whatever. The goal of an AT game design is not necessarily to be glutted on even good things. But complaining about how Descent takes too long while bashing the company that has built upon its initial release because people have been willing to buy everything released for it seems both unnecessary and self-defeating. If you don't like Descent with all the expansions, fine. But accusing FFG of being interested in screwing people out of the content of their wallets because people like to buy their games seems to me to be both OTT and a basic departure from what this site originally was. That's what's been happening and I'm betting that's why CP responded as he did.

Barnes says that he reacts to FFG as a consumer and that's what drives his perceptions. I think he's elevated beyond that into having a solid grasp of game design, but whatever. So, now I'm saying that I react to Barnes as a reader and the two things I've noticed over the past year or so are: 1. Still a solid reviewer and one I read every week. 2. The cheap shots at FFG have gotten more frequent and very, very tired.

Oh, and it's an ASSAULT cannon, not an autocannon. Only Chaos Terminators carry autocannons (Reaper autocannons, at that.) I actually find the Red team pretty efficient if you can keep them positioned correctly. It's the Green team that I find very limited most of the time.

Who cares, I don't play stinking Warhammer 40k.

The readership of F:AT is trivial compared to either Gameshark or BGG. Also, a significant amount of our traffic is through the news section anyway - searches for release dates for games. Of those that do make it as far as the comments or the Trash Talk, it appears to me that there is enough disagreement with Barnes, as well as other reviews, to present a balanced view.

That's were the distinction between the Gameshark reviews and what Barnes says in the forum or in the comments here really does make a difference. The mostly positive FFG reviews on Gameshark are read by vastly more people without any commentary, than those that read the F:AT forum or comments. While the relatively small number of people reading the F:AT forum or comments are most likely pretty hardcore Ameritrashers who have already formed their own strong opinions and aren't shy about letting them be known. If an unwary lurker did wander into the dank depths of the Fort, they will read not only Barnes' comments, but also the comments of at least six other people who strongly disagree with him.

Our readership isn't made up of passive consumers trying to make up their minds on whether or not to buy a game. They are gamers who want to discuss a range of "geek' subjects with other gamers. I think most of them could give a shit about the opinions of any of our staff writers, as long as they are provided with an opening to participate in the discussion.

So, instead of calling FFG out in the middle of the street, OK Corral style, it's more like talking shit behind their back, in a little backwater bar in Muskeegon? ;)

ROFL, I love Fortress Ameritrash.

Our readership isn't made up of passive consumers trying to make up their minds on whether or not to buy a game. They are gamers who want to discuss a range of "geek' subjects with other gamers. I think most of them could give a shit about the opinions of any of our staff writers, as long as they are provided with an opening to participate in the discussion.

That's a great point right there and one that Peterson should listen too. Every time Barnes says shit about FFG there are an army of supporters within shouting distance who do shout back and defend the choices FFG has made. So it's not unbalanced. But as much as people here think Barnes seems like a cool guy worht defending a lot of us also feel that way about Cork K, Kevin W, and, yes, Christian P because they represent the triumvirate of AT gaming, they have accounts here and at BGG, and they also seem like cool people. CP is a CEO and as such he has a head full of shit that I cannot begin to understand. This is why it's so hard, for me at least, to choose a side.

Abner's post is convincing too, Barnes has given FFG some of the best reviews ever as far as his column is concerned. But I won't let myself be swayed by anything that Barnes, Uba, Bill or whoever writes here, at least until I've heard from CP, CK, and KW as well. Fair is fair right, we're getting one side of the story filtered by the brains of F:AT, not FFG. That's why I still think this is not an issue for a public forum, it's between other people.

Well, we may be talking shit in a little backwater bar in Muskeegon, but it's hardly behind anyone's back considering the FFG peps who are registered F:AT members and/or feed subscribers.

I'm glad to see that there's a variety of opinions on this issue- I wouldn't have it any other way.

The point of making this public is that I want it to be clear from this point forward that there is _no_ relationship between myself and Fantasy Flight Games, and I want you to know the reason why. When you see a review I've written for one of their games, I want you all to be aware that I'm a paying customer just like you guys. And it is important to me that I let you all know that I feel somewhat compromised by what I think is suggested by Mr. Petersen's oddly personal handling of this.

I'm not going to be discussing FFG outside of salient issues that may come up in the course of reviewing their games any further. My opinions are known at this point, and perhaps I have overstated them at times. Just as BGG has become too central for the gaming hobby as a whole, I have felt for some time that too much of what we do as hobbyists and as Ameritrash fans has become focused one what FFG is doing (or not doing). There are plenty of great companies out there doing outstanding work that need more attention than FFG and over the past year I've deliberately tried to avoid reviewing FFG titles and balancing discussion about their games with small press and "indie" games. It's difficult to avoid discussing FFG since they are such an important and influential company, but I think there's plenty of other commentators and forum discussion out there about them. I'm not needed there.

I bear no ill will toward Fantasy Flight Games or Mr. Petersen, I wish them continued success, and I'm hoping that 2011 is a better year for them than 2010 was. That's all I've got left to say about it. We done here?

Almost done.

Who the fuck is Bill Abner?

Barnes' sugah daddy

I'm happy to accept the free games formerly slated for Barnes. ;D

I like seeing Michael take the position that he won't offer purely positive reviews for games. That's good. Of course the whole "free games for reviews" model certainly still creates the appearance of impropriety/conflict of interest for reviewer even if the reviewer really does try to be fair. I know Michael is far from the only guy getting free games and this applies to all free game reviewers. That's not a bash against people who get free games and do reviews, it's just a statement of fact. If GMT or Fantasy Flight offered to be my gaming shuga daddy I'd probably take them up on it.

Uba is right.

And while I won't get into specifics re: numbers, when LCD first appeared, a vast majority of traffic came from F:AT and BGG, which was expected. After a while, when both the regular site readership and the twitterscapes and other general game forums started to recognize it, that started to change. I greatly appreciate the fact that a lot of people from F:AT still read Mike's column every week, and debate the shit out of them, but F:AT pretty much defines the term niche site. It's not like that's a dirty word, though. I read every article that is posted here.

What put LCD on the map was the ongoing store ownership saga. When that started, readership exploded and Mike managed to keep most of those new readers after its conclusion. Traffic goes up and down depending on the topic he chooses to write about on any given week, but without getting too specific, Cracked LCD is read, every week, by thousands of people and has been for about 3 years now.

As for free games. I wish we lived in a world where we had 100% complete Consumer Reports level autonomy from game publishers. That's simply not the reality we work in. Gamers demand reviews to be posted as early as possible, and when one site gets early copies of a game, every other site demands the same treatment. Not to get "free stuff" but to simply attempt to keep up with the Joneses.

Example: UbiSoft sent us a debug build of Assassin's Creed Brotherhood 2 weeks before release. This build won't even run on a store bought Xbox 360; you need a debug machine from Microsoft. One of our staffers has such a machine, so we reviewed the game and had a review ready for launch. (a great game, fwiw). Traffic for that review was great. If I had turned that build down and had a review posted 7-10 days later, well, traffic for that article would be about 1/10 what it was for a launch day review of an A list title.

We *do* get our own games from time to time, normally if we don't get a review copy of a particular game we'll have people use GameFly to rent them. That happens. Hell Barnes is keeping GFly in business at the moment because he loves to review off the wall games like Blood Drive. Activision didn't even send out copies of that one. But when you are running a business that depends on traffic and the traffic demands launch day or at the very least week 1 reviews, we have to do what we have to do.

And it's fine to say "I would never accept a free game to review!" That's a perfectly reasonable position to take. But you also wouldn't be doing this job for long, as people may SAY they want "100% totally unbiased reviews from people who bought a game themselves." They'll say that.

Then they'll go read IGN the day a game comes out.

I wish it wasn't like that, as our industry relies on "access" to a ridiculous degree, but that's the reality of it. I think the best option for readers, if they are truly reading reviews to base a buying decision upon (which is actually kinda rare as most people read reviews to verify their own opinion) then you need to get to know the PEOPLE doing the reviews, not the site as a whole. *Never* trust a website. Not mine. Not Eurogamer. Not GameSpot. Not IGN. Learn to trust (or not to trust) the individual people doing the work.

In fact I need to start linking our staffers' reviews from every article they write for that very reason.

Apparently someone with way too much time on his hands on a Saturday morning. OR someone trying to avoid the wife's gaze to get out of doing pre-Thanksgiving house cleaning.

I appreciate your insight, Bill, but I don't think we're talking about the same thing in terms of game reviews.

The videogame market is much larger than the boardgame market and much faster paced. In a similar manner to the movie industry these days, the videogame market often depends on opening day sales. The instant shock method of approval or disapproval will determine the fate of a game. OTOH, boardgame sales are slower and people can frequently wait until the reviewers have their own store-bought copies. So, I'm not particularly concerned about whether Barnes (or anyone) has early access to the next FFG release. There issue here was not timing.

Furthermore, the issue was not what Barnes said on a personal level here on F:AT. Anyone suggesting that CP was "stalking" Barnes' personal output is exaggerating, I think. Did CP respond in a forum thread here? Yes, he did. But I think the tipping point was what I suggested last night: casual potshots in reviews of games. In other words, in Barnes' professional capacity, he continued to dump on games that he wasn't currently reviewing or on the company as a whole. The question of whether that's professional behavior is an open one which I won't answer. Certainly, companies do have trends in design and if their trend is a poor one, it's fair game (heh) to bring that up when doing multiple reviews. But I don't think that's the case when dealing with FFG's output and I think Barnes, in a sense, made it too personal. He had an axe to grind and he ground it even in disparate settings.

Did his reviews remain accurate and straightforward? Yes. I think they did. If he could have stuck to that and left off the extras, I don't think we'd be here discussing this. And, as Barnes noted earlier, it's a done deal, so it's probably time to move on.

Good luck with that second one there Bill.

Be sure to PM me if you figure it out though...

Jackwraith - some examples of Barnes taking 'potshots' at FFG while reviewing other games at Gameshark might make you post seem to hold some validity instead of making you look like a pedantic troll.

So... about Death Angels. I bought a copy yesterday and am just now reading the rules. I've got plans for later on tonight, so I won't get a chance to play until maybe tomorrow.

Anyway, one very interesting thing that I noticed was that this co-op game has a built-in mechanic to thwart that control freak player that tries to dominate co-op games. Some of the event cards in this game are labeled Instinct, and the player handling an Instinct event card must make an immediate decision without consulting any of the other players. This represents a situation that is happening faster than the Marines would have time to talk. Cool idea.

The rule book is decent, except that it's too small for some of the visual examples to work without getting the components out to recreate the example. Maybe some of those diagrams could have been laid out over two adjacent pages instead of just crammed into one narrow page. Also, some of the mechanics seem non-intuitive, though it seems to be a necessary evil when packing a lot of game into a very limited quantity of components.

The Saga of the Atlanta Games factory was a really good read.

My question about the numbers really was meant as genuine inquiry about the numbers. The Uba and Abner info was very enlightening. Thanks for the insight.

Fortress Ameritrash, always a great read.

Wow, extremely clever, more coop games should have something like this. Coop games definitely need more points in the game where single players have full responsibility for their decisions; this is something I wish were more true of Battlestar Galactica, especially. Sure, once you're outing yourself as a Cylon you can do whatever you want, but before that basically the group decides on every action on every turn. This is why Space Alert is the best coop game.

Do you actually read what is posted at this site?

I don't know if the addtional potshots were more in reviews or comments here but it doesn't matter: to the reader (to some readers) it all certainly created the impression of a bias or chip on the shoulder as Clockwirk and Jackwraith suggested. MB may be fully capable of giving an excellent and fair review of FFG games like anyone elses', but the way I see it FFG or CP simply lost patience with the GADFLY APPROACH.

Wow, extremely clever, more coop games should have something like this. Coop games definitely need more points in the game where single players have full responsibility for their decisions; this is something I wish were more true of Battlestar Galactica, especially. Sure, once you're outing yourself as a Cylon you can do whatever you want, but before that basically the group decides on every action on every turn. This is why Space Alert is the best coop game.

Besides averting a certain meta-game issue, I love the Instinct concept for thematic reasons. Sometimes a strong and competent leader can lead a weak team to success. And sometimes an otherwise competent team can face disaster when some rookie screws up bigtime. And I expect that momentary separation from the ongoing dialogue with the team can produce the same kinds of mental errors induced by the time pressure in Space Hulk.

Ah, it's like that EVERYWHERE, not just here. You need access to the White House to be in politics, you need access to CEOs in business to work for CNBC or the Journal, and you need access to local officials to work for the county rag. It's just what it is, but that's not to say it's quid-pro-quo. It a matter of fairness. If you don't unfairly criticize or unjustly shit on someone, you're going to be fine, unless you get a guy who has a hard-on for you, in which case...well, that's not the guy you really want to be messing with anyhow, I'd think.

Anyhow, enough about this mess. I'm so getting this game, and it's DIRECTLY attributable to the GS review. I didn't want it at first, but it sounds like a portable, cool version of Space Hulk, so this just jumped up on the Xmas list.

Besides averting a certain meta-game issue, I love the Instinct concept for thematic reasons. Sometimes a strong and competent leader can lead a weak team to success. And sometimes an otherwise competent team can face disaster when some rookie screws up bigtime. And I expect that momentary separation from the ongoing dialogue with the team can produce the same kinds of mental errors induced by the time pressure in Space Hulk.

Going off what you and Dragonstout said, I agree that the Instinct device is pretty cool. We've had players lose interest in games like AH and Descent because they feel like they're not free to make their own decisions; someone more experienced (or at least more forceful at the table) is always directing. Now, our Descent crew is pretty experienced, so we've kind of grown past that to everyone agreeing on the most logical course of action, which is often necessary to survive, but I like the tension provided by one person in a narrow hallway making the choice for everyone because there's no time to discuss it. It's akin to the sand timer used in Space Hulk for the Marine player's actions. Act quickly or die quickly, basically.

The silver lining in all this that we will all save al of of time because we will never have to read a FFG game review again. We can just assume that the review is positive because it they will always have been written by someone with a positive predisposition to FFG and/or the game itself. All reviews will have been written by someone who was was hand picked by FFG to receive a press copy because they don't say negative things about FFG or their games, or it is by a reviewer who purchased the game themselves because they anticipated that they would like it.

Maybe once in a while you might get a one-off FFG review from someone who played the game once, maybe a friend's copy, or at a con, but you can ignore those because you really can't judge a game by playing it once. It's not like the reviewer owns a copy of the game and can play it multiple times, with different groups and different numbers of players so that they can give it full consideration a reviewer typically gives a press copy.

So the real winners of policies like this is us, the readers.:)

What Death Angel has in addition to the Instinct rule, you must not order other players to use one of their special ability, only Move, Support or Attack. So you can't say: "OK I attack here will Psi-guy does his force field thingie on this group of genestealers."

This is one of the most deceitful and hypocritical posts I have ever seen, and frankly I thought you of all people were better than this.
Firstly claiming that FFG only sends press kits to positive reviewers is a blatant lie, and you very well know it. It also reflects very poorly on Matt who is still getting press copies, and he has done nothing to support this stupid claim you have made.
Second, indicating in the second paragraph that the only reviews worth reading are those that derive from free sources is absolute garbage and hypocritical considering that the majority of front page reviews are not press copies. In fact ‘reader articles’ is a cause you have normally championed, and from my understanding you are the chief editor of them. If this is your opinion then why waste peoples time encouraging them to contribute?

The sneering tone of your post as if FFG game reviews was a great albatross upon FATs neck (we will all save al of of time because we will never have to read a FFG game review again) demonstrates quite aptly that fact that Christian Peterson was correct in his decision.

Skeletor, you're just jealous you're not a winner like the rest of us.

I think that if someone is providing a free copy of a game for review that there's a reasonable expectation that the review will be fair. I can absolutely see how FFG would get the impression that Barnes has reached a point where he's no longer able to offer a fair review. To be honest, it's turned me off of this site somewhat - not Barnes in particular, but the general anti-FFG vibe that's seemed to be based on nothing and everything except a game's merits. I mean, clockwirk nailed it with his quote from this particular review. That's not to say that Barnes or anyone else isn't entitled to that opinion - but I'm less interested in reading stuff like that than I used to be.

The only company I have a bigger gaming boner for than FFG is WotC. Descent has still always sucked though.

I read reviews for their bias. Hopefully they are fair, but if they don't have some opinion based on their previous holistic experience up to that point, why the fuck do I care what they have to say?

I go away for a week and miss a great little shitfight. Typical.

Everyone involved has generally acted honourably and with good reason, but like Simpson's paradox in statistics, the end result is that Barnes and CP both look bad.

One point that Barnes doesn't get, is that like other people have posted here, CP does not distinguish between forum posts and reviews. We know he reads the forums here, and so while others may only read Gameshark, one key party does, and he doesn't care one iota whether comments are in official reviews or only semi-official. They are all Barnes' official opinions. Secondly there is something that just feels slightly off about Barnes' behaviour. He takes a free game, writes a glowing review, and then often slightly profits off it keeping it or by trading for something he does like, but makes a lot of negative comment about FFG or the games here. I can't quite put my finger on it, but I can see why CP would be miffed, and feel that he was being taken for a ride.

Barnes on the other hand has always been honest, truthful, and always tries to give the good and bad in his reviews. If you send him a copy for review, you know that if he does post a good review it will do wonders as a lot of people trust him. He has never held back on info, which is why he felt the need to post here. Barnes also has two big character flaws, in that as Abner says he keeps banging a drum until it breaks, constantly stating his opinion well past its time and place, and the second is that, like my daughter, he doesn't notice other people starting to rankle at his behaviour, so when there are repercussions they come as a complete shock.

Now as I have said many times, I feel the biggest flaw in all of this was that the games were sent directly to Barnes. It always creates conflict and tension when this is mentioned. However as has been discussed a games reviewer can't fund all purchases themselves, as it creates too big an expense for the average joe to handle. The review copies should be sent directly to the organisation publishing the review, Gameshark, or F:AT, who then farm it out to individual reviewers. This gives everyone a chance to feel things are more above board.

Quick comment:

I receive review copies all the time. Without them, I could not keep up a steady stream of review content, at least, not at a pace that will maintain readership.

Review copies are, to me, liberating. I no longer have to convince myself that I like a game because I spent $50 on it. Because, if I spent $50 on something and I hate it, then I'm an idiot with bad taste. I don't want to be an idiot with bad taste. So the rationalization begins.

With review copies I feel I can, in unbiased fashion, review the positive and negative aspects of games. I don't have to convince myself I've made a wise purchase.

Also, importantly, I am reviewing something that I did not go and purchase...meaning I was leaning toward liking it in the first place. You can't be unbiased if you start evaluating something while being predisposed to liking it in the first place.

I have been fortunate in that I've given some reviews that were poor or "meh" to games, and I haven't been "cut off." Is it possible? Sure. But I have to call 'em like I see them. If I tell you a game is great and I don't honestly believe it, then I have no credibility left.

I have also been fortunate in that there have been a lot of good games coming out lately, so I have had a lot of more positive gaming experiences lately.

At any rate...

It's a shame that this has gone down. FFG is one of the premiere AT companies. I own more FFG games than any other company. I haven't fully agreed with some of the negativity regarding FFG, but I certainly respect someone having that opinion.

I would think that a company would want to avoid that situation where it appears they cease sending review materials to anyone who gives negative reviews, because honestly it makes that company appear to be "buying" positive reviews with free copies. I have a lot of respect for companies who brave negative reviews, because that's all a part of it...a part of the whole subjective review process.

(As a final aside, I know some folks don't like the nature of the "free" game concept...tossing around comments about sugar daddies and what not. If I get a review copy of a game, I have to spend time playing it (whether I want to or not at that given moment), and then time spent formulating, writing, editing, and publishing a review. There's at LEAST six hours--conservative estimate--involved in every review that goes life here. For a $50 game, that's 'payment' of just over $8 an hour. That is a hair over minimum wage. And that's IF a game review has ONLY six hours sunk into it...it's usually more.)

Here I thought playing board games was supposed to be...fun. Like in a hobby, a past time, a liesure activity. It seems.....odd...to be moaning about "only" making $8 an hour to do something you'd be doing for free anyway just for fun.

"Quick comment:"

You lie straight into our faces. >:(

Please. Don't insult us all by pretending that this is about good vs. bad reviews. All of us have pointed out that Barnes should have total freedom to express his true opinion about the game he's reviewing. We have also pointed out that the "bad reviews = cut off from FFG" is a false equation because Barnes has given many more positive than negative reviews of FFG games and has still gotten cut off. Also, many reviewers have given negative reviews of FFG games and have NOT been cut off, so it must be something else.

Skelly nailed it. This is a total strawman argument.

I have now played two 2-player games of Death Angel. We lost both games, but really enjoyed both games up until the last turn or so. Still, Death Angel is an amazing little game that deserves more credit than I've seen here. The design is an absolute marvel of efficiency, accomplishing so much with so few components, and containing a surprising amount of replay value. At this point, my only real concern is that the game may be too hard to win, though I expect that I will learn more about the strategy in future games and get better at winning.

I have now played two 2-player games of Death Angel. We lost both games, but really enjoyed both games up until the last turn or so. Still, Death Angel is an amazing little game that deserves more credit than I've seen here. The design is an absolute marvel of efficiency, accomplishing so much with so few components, and containing a surprising amount of replay value. At this point, my only real concern is that the game may be too hard to win, though I expect that I will learn more about the strategy in future games and get better at winning

I wonder if there's a sweet spot for players in terms of ease. We've played several games with 4 and while we've run into moments of tension and have lost some Marines, we've won all of them. I did play one solo game and lost miserably, though.

Jackwraith, that can't be the only factor, because a 4-player game is the exact same level of challenge as a 2-player game, because the 2-player game is played with 4 combat teams. We might just be slower learners than your group, or maybe you benefit from having four players analyzing the situation instead of just two.

After my friend left, I just played two solitaire games (with 3 combat teams). The first game was the usual, going okay until a disaster in the #3 location. The second game, Brother Deino just managed to win by activating the launch room control panel. The other five marines were dead.

I'm sorry...I missed the part where I was "moaning" about anything.

I *don't* look at it like getting 'paid'. I was merely pointing out the fallacy involved...if people are doing this to get free stuff, or think that's why people do it, well, there are better ways to spend time and make money, you know?

But whatever.

Back to the game - solo is easiest I think, and the locations you draw have a lot to do with how hard the game is going to be.

(As a final aside, I know some folks don't like the nature of the "free" game concept...tossing around comments about sugar daddies and what not. If I get a review copy of a game, I have to spend time playing it (whether I want to or not at that given moment), and then time spent formulating, writing, editing, and publishing a review. There's at LEAST six hours--conservative estimate--involved in every review that goes life here. For a $50 game, that's 'payment' of just over $8 an hour. That is a hair over minimum wage. And that's IF a game review has ONLY six hours sunk into it...it's usually more.)

I'll be the first to admit that I got into reviewing because I couldn't afford to buy all the games I wanted. I figured out pretty quick that if I can write a lot of reviews and find someone to read them, I could get people to send me games in the mail for free. And it works!

But those 'free games' are not always games I wanted to play. Like, I would normally avoid a Reiner Knizia game like it came with poisonous tree frogs, but I still have a hell of a lot of them. If I want Eagle Games to send me Defenders of the Realm (and I did, and they did), I also have to review Yin Yang.

As far as the money goes - when I do freelance design work, I bill out around $75 an hour. I don't count game play time as billable time, but I do count the hour or two I spend writing and editing, finding images, locating retailers carrying the game and uploading. For a $100 game, that's worth it (especially if I like it). For a $20 game that I hate, that is not money well spent. I could have just picked up a freelance client, and if I finished in less than half an hour, come out pretty far ahead. So my free games cost me plenty - but I pay in sweat, not green cash money.

It always amazes me when people get offended because I get free games. If it bothers them so much, why don't they do it? It's not like there's an employment office where people check your resume and say, 'Nope, you can't write game reviews. Back to the ditch digging, loser!' It does help if you do it for ten years, but seriously, anyone can do it. Not everyone can do it well, though. Take, for instance, me. I spend a decade at this, and mostly all I can do is describe a game in terms of dick jokes.

I think the launch control room is the easiest. Most of the time you'll have the opportunity of at least two activations of the relavant terrain which equals a one in three chance of winning. That's okay odds. So I almost always win my solo games when that's the final location. On the other hand I think I've only won once or twice with the genestealer lair in play.

I don't know what everyone is all riled up about. This is easily one of the better things that could have happened to Barnes' career. As a reviewer who needs to be on the cutting edge of gaming, it is inevitble (and even desirable) to be cut off. It is part of the punk identity (somewhat shared on this site) to rail at authority and there are few games companies with as much influence as FFG. Now loosing multple game companies would signal a general lack of faith. However even if that happened it would not be detrimental. He would revert to an 'outsider' pointing out the flaws and greatness in games.

I don't always agree with his assessments, but one thing I do like is that he writes with convictiction and wit. I am amazed that people are so twisted over this. It is not going to make a difference in the long run.

Steve"speedbump"Avery

Schweig! wrote: ""Quick comment:"
You lie straight into our faces. >:("
Hardly. Didn't you know KenB is fast? We're talking 200wpm typing here.

clockwirk wrote: "Also, many reviewers have given negative reviews of FFG games and have NOT been cut off, so it must be something else."
Time. It's easy to forget all the positive reviews as they fade into the past. But people remember the digs. Eventually the perception is that there was little of the former and a great deal of the latter.

InfinityMax wrote: "I would normally avoid a Reiner Knizia game like it came with poisonous tree frogs"
Me too, so you can keep the game, but can I have the tree frogs?

"The review copies should be sent directly to the organisation publishing the review, Gameshark, or F:AT, who then farm it out to individual reviewers. This gives everyone a chance to feel things are more above board."

That's a good idea in principle - too bad it can't be done in practice.

"This is easily one of the better things that could have happened to Barnes' career."

Agreed. Two major bannings are feathers in the cap.

The Barnes review is powerful and strong enough to garner strong reaction. I don't think the bannings made Barnes career; his strong writing did.

I got to play this, and I have to say that it was an epic disappointment. I cannot see how this game made it to any GotY list. It's an epic failure, in my book. This was Ford Fairlane, the card game: "Like fucking a cheese grater. Slightly amusing but mostly painful"

Drake called this one on the nose.

BRAAAAAAAINSSSS