Is it just me, or is that attitude somewhat, erm, schizophrenic? In the reader response (left column), he says,

"But, and here is the real catch. We are not after those gamers who already follow and support Shrapnel Games. These are our loyal fans and they, for the most part, don't listen to these reviews anyway. For us and our developers to prosper and stay around for a long time, bringing you games that you love to play, we need to find and bring in new gamers."

But in the rant (right column), he says,

"What is it with reviewers and graphics? A recent poll on our website (September's Monthly Poll) showed that only 4% of strategy game players thought graphics was the most important feature of a strategy game. Now, go to almost any review of a strategy or wargame and count how many paragraphs are used to discuss graphics. We found that it was usually anywhere from 20-40% of the article!"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like he wants to enter new markets (i.e. the mainstream) using the "rules" of the old market (hardcore strategy gamers), then bitches about the old rules not applying to the new.

So strategy/war fans that visit Strat First's site (hello, skewed sample size) don't care about graphics. Okay, that's fine. The mainstream does. Want that mainstream market? Expect to get dinged on the graphics if they don't compete.

Sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it too. Or am I not understanding (as usual)?

I have no idea what they want, other than they want reviewers who understand the kind of game they're reviewing. I can understand that, but it's not really something a game company can do much about.

In my mind you have to take off something for dated-looking graphics. Shrapnel should accept that.

What surprises me is that Shrapnel has made such a public statement about it. Why not just pare the review list down and keep quiet about it? Was there some controversy about all this I missed that provoked them into making a public statement?

I am surprised by their attitude. It smacks of sour grapes and all it really does is alienate them. Better to put up and shutup.

I do think that some of the newer, and perhaps smaller, websites tend to have a sense of entitlement these days when it comes to receiving free copies of games. Every day we get at least one and sometimes as many as ten emails from new gaming websites dedicated to being the "number one resource for gaming news, previews, reviews and features on the Internet."

And of course they all want us to send them free games so they can review them. Interestingly enough, these new websites seem to pop up right around the holidays (no joke).

I think it's completely fair for Sarge to put his foot down and create some ground rules for reviewers. After all, it's his games. If you are a reviewer and you don't like Sarge's rules, simply don't ask for a free copy of his game and go buy one. You can still knock the game for having bad graphics, talk at length about how much you hate that type of game or even criticize it for not being something else.

And really, all he's asking for is fair reviews. I didn't see him say anywhere that he would limit his mailings only to those reviewers who give him good reviews (though that may end up how it turns out, who knows?).

Well here is a review from an established game review site for Shrapnel's Remote Assault - Avault review. They give Graphics 2/5 and an Overall score of 2.5/5. The reviewer is Jeff Haynes and he is listed as a trainee staff writer.

Well to begin with I understand the immediate negative reaction from you guys as you are reviewers (and actually I started out in the industry that way myself).

However recently a lot of good websites have closed and a lot of paid folks have been let go. Many of our games (because we aren't a AAA game producer) are now given to new reviewers who normally play C&C style games and are completely LOST with our games. I had one reviewer recently from a "reputable" game site who actually wanted me to walk him through one of our games because he didn't really understand the concept of turns (I am NOT making this stuff up).

Add to that very recently a major gaming magazine assigned someone who definetly was NOT qualified to review the game we sent, but was given it because the senior person who normally does it was too busy. I actually received a note from the senior person who said they were not happy about the treatment of our game in the least.

In many reviews lately we have seen comments like "Wow wargamers would love this and it is really cool if you are that sort of person, but for the 99% of us this game just sucks" or something to that extent. And many of the newer reviews are not only short but they also don't understand many of the concepts in the game to begin with.

We would never not give review copy to someone who didn't think the game was good for CONCRETE reasons, but to say they don't like it just because it is a wargame or not an RTS game or whatever is silly. A good example of a good review is the Remote Assault review on Avault today. He dinged us several times but it was in depth and well reasoned and he understood the strengths of the game. Of course he still made the only for hardcore comments, but oh well ;). And then there is also the graphics issue which I will not delve into ;).

Anyway enough from me, this is really Sarge's territory...

Oh and as far as Sarge goes he can be inconsistent at time, I think it has something to do with taking that Shrapnel in his brain back in 'Nam.

But you didn't here that from me, Sarge is not someone to piss off ;).

sadly, wargames are alien to young adults today and I'm not surprised to hear you report these problems. editors need to try harder to find reviewers who know wargames. I know for a fact that quite a few of them do.

Editors. Jeff Lackey, Bruce Geryk, Andrew Bubb, Tom Chick, William Trotter, Scott Udell.

These, and probably more, are all old school former wargamers who would probably be willing to review these games.

Ahyway, Maybe the problem is that lots of editors don't understand wargames.

(I've worked on both sides too, now I'm in PR)

The good news for Sarge and for rdarnese is that any real wargamer can spot these pretenders instantly!

And editors need to stop begging for review copies also if they can't find the folks to review the games :).

Editor in email "Oh yes we loves wargames and hard core strategy, we will review any title you send us"

A few months later....

"Well we couldn't find someone to review it since Mega Campaign Charlie from Supersoft is so hot and everyone wants to do that. Plus those guys pay us lots of money in ads."

Or we just get crappy reviews when they are forced on newbies who really just want to review Mega Campaign Charlie.

Oh we've known about it for awhile it has just become chronic over the summer.

Also add to your list Jim Cobb, Jeff Vitious, Mark Walker, Brian Rubin, Will Albright (is he still around), Scott Krol (is he still around too ;)), David Finn, Alan Dunkin (too bad he's at playnet now), Michael Gonsalves, etc.

"editors need to try harder to find reviewers who know wargames. I know for a fact that quite a few of them do...Andrew Bubb,"

You're kidding, right Andrew?

Hey! That's "Bub" not "Bubb"!
And yes, I have a full background history in wargames moreso on computers than tabletop, but some tabletop games like The Blue & The Gray. Also, I do believe Combat Mission is my favorite game from the past couple years.

I wonder what magazines you're talking about though. PCG uses Trotter, CGM uses Mayer and Udell (and me occasionally), CGW uses Geryk and Lackey... Hey, let me know where the void is.

-Andrew
PS: I'd add Tracy Byrl Baker and Robert Mayer to anonymous' little list o' grognards. Oh, and I bet Bill Hiles knows a thing or two as well.

I know nothing about wargames, which is why I never review any, although I did play a number of Avalon Hill and SPI wargames as a youngster. I never paid attention to their historical context, though. I'm just not all that interested in military history. I like games with rayguns or lightning bolt spells. :)

I think it's fine that Shrapnel and other game companies limit the number of review copies that go out, but I think it's a bit shortsighted to insist that only grognard types review their games. Maybe I'd be more interested in a wargame if some Cheeto-eating reviewer who doesn't know a panzer from a panther reviewed a Shrapnel game and liked it and did a good job of explaining why he, a non-grognard, enjoyed it. I could relate to that.

As to graphics, I just thing you have to take your lumps if you're working with a limited budget. If the graphics can't compare with big budget games, the reviewer should make that clear and the score should reflect that to some extent.

And tell Sarge good luck getting through heightened airport security with all that metal in his head. :)

Boy, everyone's reading Qt3 now-a-days. You can't mention a topic without the subject making an appearance. And another thing, I think Katie Holmes should be topless in a lot more movies. ;)

Watched The Gift in slow motion there, didja?

One of my biggest complaints with reviews from most sites today is that they do knock you on really, really small things.

"These graphics don't look like they were made with the Unreal engine. Screw that!"

or

"This isn't Quake III, it sucks."

I've read quite a few reviews that come out and state things along the lines of, "This game, based on the aging and dated Quake II engine...blahblahblah"

Aging and dated? That engine still looks great even today. These are the kind of people I'd think Shrapnel is targetting. These are also the kind of people who don't remember who the big band was 4 years ago because they're too busy on the latest fad today.

Or I could be wrong, but I know I'm tired of reading reviews that focus on graphics and game-to-game comparisons, rather than giving me a real thumbs-up heads-up feel for the game.

I can understand their frustration with reviewers that don't understand the genre. Part of why I trust the reviews of many of the folks mentioned above is that I can see that they do understand the genre.

It does seem a little odd to me that Shrapnel wants to sell to non-grogs, but then complain that non-grog reviewers don't "get" the games. In my experience, you are a wargamer or you are not, and it is very rare for someone to become a wargamer at a late age. I see wargames as a very niche product, with little possibility of sales growth. When we were kids, almost everyone I knew had a copy of Monopoly or Sorry!, but I only knew one other person with a copy of Squad Leader. Same goes now for computer games.

Side note: I pointed an eight-year-old WWII enthusiast toward Combat Mission the other day (according to his mother, he was recently complaining that some documentary had the stats wrong for the V-2 rocket). That got me wondering what my expectations would be if I had grown up with at least a Playstation, and my first exposure to a computer wargame was Combat Mission. I don't think I would be interested in the hex-based "board game simulators" that so many wargames are. Maybe only for strategic-level games, since I'm not sure how to carry off a strategy game without counters of some type.

I think Shrapnel should redesign all their wargames using the Quake III graphics engine.

That would give all these 15yo reviewers something to crow about !

Actually, I'm doing a full frontal scene in my next movie.

And I've got some lovely stills, but they're not for sale at any price. Sorry, fellas.

Supertanker, I agree.

I think Shrapnel is treating not the reviewers, but the public as idiots. Do they really think only the employees of Shrapnel games are able to understand what is meant by hardcore war gamers or a similar phrase? And do they really think that is not a valid phrase?

I think most of the public when reading a review of a shrapnel game would understand the phrase and understand how it applies to the idea buying the game or not. And I think the phrase or something similar is warranted in a review. When most of the world plays Starcraft, warn them the game is not starcraft.

The game reviewers have a responsibility to their readers, not the game companies. Sorry you are a small struggling company, but your short sightedness will only make you that much smaller.

And I like how they claim the game cost them retail price. I guess they are losing tons of money on their direct sales then.

Chet

Chet:

We are not treating the public as idiots. Just some of the reviewers. The recent review of Desert Rats in CGW, for instance, said the graphics limited emersion into the game. This is an old school wargame, where you want distance not emersion - you are planning strategy from afar, not on the front lines - the statement WAS idiotic.

IT sounds like YOU think the public are idiots. Do you really need to warn them that a wargame is not Starcraft? Aren't they smarter than this? I think so.

What is unacceptable is the idea that the standard for graphics that EVERY game is held up to must be an 8-9 million dollar venture. That really would limit the number of games released.

Also, we are not as small and struggling as you think.

As to cost, sorry, but it does cost around $20 and, to Europe, $25 to send out review copies. It is not just the cost of the product, but people's time, shipping charges, insurance, and the list goes on. I'm glad you aren't running our company, it would surely go broke.

And finally, we do more than wargames, we do 4X, RPG, simulations, so our market is broader than you let on. We just don't spend the rediculous sum of $8 mil to put a game into the marketplace.

--Sarge

Honestly, I've given up reading reviews. Atlest professional reviews. I'll check the net to see if there are any horrible bugs and if their isn't, I'll buy it. My taste are so out of sync with the main stream that its hopeless.


ps: Sarge, I'm looking forwards towards The War Engine

While I have some sympathy for Shrapnel in this--not every developer can be Blizzard--I can't agree 100% with that assessment of the CGW review. On that one point, immersion, I really think I have a very different definition of the term in mind. I think you can definitely have, and should have, a great deal of immersion even in a wargame at the level of Desert Rats (I haven't played it yet, so I can't comment on whether the CGW review was accurate or not). Graphics can be part of that, too, to give the player the feel of being immersed in the decision making process. Nice maps, well-presented and attractive data and reports, good-looking counters and interface--all of that contributes to the immersive nature of being the general in command of the battle.

Again, not to comment on anything specific, but in general I think it's incorrect to say a game at the abstraction level of Desert Rats can't and shouldn't be immersive. Immersion is part of all gameplay experiences, not just flashy first-person experiences.

From sarge's rant on the renegade site.

---

Quote:

Another one, this for Desert Rats, the only bad review this wonderful old school wargame has received, was given its poor rating because, get this, it's an old school wargame! NO! REALLY! So how was it as an old school wargame?

---

---

Quote:

We are not treating the public as idiots. Just some of the reviewers. The recent review of Desert Rats in CGW, for instance, said the graphics limited emersion into the game. This is an old school wargame, where you want distance not emersion - you are planning strategy from afar, not on the front lines - the statement WAS idiotic.

---

---

Quote:

And finally, we do more than wargames,

---

Chet,

Are you going to fight every special guest star that comes on Qt3?

A better question: Chet, how about giving "the quest to berate everyone who disagrees with me" a break for once. The novelty of Chet has worn off now that oldmanmurray is basically an archive site and your permanent state of annoyance at how dumb everyone else is isn't winning any new converts.

'We are not treating the public as idiots. Just some of the reviewers. The recent review of Desert Rats in CGW, for instance, said the graphics limited emersion into the game. This is an old school wargame, where you want distance not emersion - you are planning strategy from afar, not on the front lines - the statement WAS idiotic.'

Most people don't mean "I wish I was on the front lines with a gun, listening to artillery shells whistle overhead" when they're discussing immersion in strategy games; they mean "if the graphics were a little better, the cognitive dissonance of fighting a war in a manner that looks a lot like my desk job wouldn't be so strong."

The best selling "wargame" of all time is Panzer General. Sure, it's ludicrously simplified, but it manages to convey basic concepts and the puzzle-like nature of combined arms combat in a glitzy (for the time) manner.

As to the graphics of the game in question:

http://www.shrapnelgames.com/boku/cc2_dr/images/Tebaga.jpg

Does it really cost 8 million to pay someone to draw useful icons? A tank that looks like a tank, and the like? It looks like the symbolic art class of 2001 is fighting the class of 2002 ("Die, X and square heathens!")

If you're trying to sell a game in 2001 that still uses 1979 boardgame icons, it's a miracle non-grognards will even agree to review your game, much less like it.

Well, I will say that "1979 boardgame icons" aren't all that bad, in their place. We're usually referring to the NATO-standard military symbology (little rectangles with an horizontal oval for armor, an x for infantry, a solid circle for artiller, etc.) that is very clear, concise, and usefull in many applications. Pictures of tanks can sometimes be good, too, especially in a very tactical game, but the pictures of infantry that usually accompany them are often problematic, vehicles being easier to draw spiffily than people.

Anyhow, the problem with some games may be not that they are using 1979 icons but that they are using ugly 1979 icons.

Sorry for pointing out a confusion I had. To me sarge is wanting it both ways. Sorry for also not being the biggest fan of the hex/number war games, and sorry for making a little joke at the expense of this glorious company. Sorry for daring to say other people might not like these great games, also for saying any of the above with a weak attempt at humor.

I am sorry for finding a quote that seems to contradict a post. I withdraw my question and my post. All wargames are good, us people who don't like them are stupid and should never question anyone who might be helping kill off a genre. I am sorry for making you stoop to my level and take cheap shots against me. I am sorry. I apologize.

I should have learned my lesson when I dared to say Operational Art of War could have used some training missions.

Chet

blah blah blah ... you never stop

"Anyhow, the problem with some games may be not that they are using 1979 icons but that they are using ugly 1979 icons."

There we go. Right on. Make that strategic map look like something that a gamer will say, 'Waaahh, that's cool looking', make it look like a tiny, super detailed map, work on ambient sound and good powerful sound effects, and a good looking, informative, easy to use interface, and wargames will break out of the niche market category. I'm convinced of that.

I really think it's time for wargames to move up to the modern age. It's an 'adapt or die' situation IMHO. But I think the developers are listening to their client base (hard-core, realism-above-all grogs) say, 'we don't care about the graphics' and are basing their design decisions on that. I would say, if you want more market share, you have to get your info elsewhere than in-house surveys and your own message boards, I would think.

DeanCo--

I remember talking to Phil Steinmeyer at PopTop a few years ago. His first game was Iron Cross, a wargame. Enough grognards complained about little historical details being wrong -- a tank type appearing in the game in 1943 that wasn't available until 1944 and that sort of thing -- that he decided it was just too much of a headache to deal with, and he hasn't done a wargame since.

So yeah, the "grogs" as Dean puts it can be their own worst enemy.

The grogs -- I like that! That should be a race in some fantasy game.

I think the day I stopped being a "grognard" was when Sid Meier's Gettysburg was released. Before that I reviewed RELee Civil War General and a few of the Talonsoft Battleground series, and played some of the early Apple 2 wargame classics. But SMG presented it all in a way that was more... fun. Still, I missed the nuts and bolts "realism" a hex n' turns game can provide, but SMG was more "realistic" in the way it made you use actual battleline tactics, so I was happy foregoing things like ammunition, supply lines, etc.,

Combat Mission was the clincher though. Giving most of the realism a hex game can give, yet, also capturing that SMG immediacy.

I'm not saying that CM represents the "end of turn based hex wargaming" (or whatever you want to call it) but it sort of represented the end for me. I'll review a hardcore wargame fairly, but I probably wouldn't buy it in the store myself.

As for the other arguments I'd like to add that I think it's crucial a reviewer understand and enjoy a hardcore traditional wargaming before reviewing a title in that genre. Someone who "doesn't get it" may better represent the mainstream, but they don't represent that game's audience. But the review should also consider and respect the expectations of the mainstream and a good review will make it clear that a Command & Conquer fanboy isn't going to dig on OpArt of War.

A reviewer can knock a game like Desert Rats for graphics, mainly because other low budget wargames do feature better graphics, but if the game itself is solid, that must be weighed heavily in the score.

The thing that maybe missing from the reviews Sarge is complaining about could be as simple as "respect and understanding of the genre".
-Andrew

Shrapnel Games' main page is currently spotlighting their newest title, Combat Command 2: Desert Rats, and features *one* positive review blurb from a site called VideoGameNews.net which is a joint project between Chet and his friend Kevin.

My work here is done. Away!

Shrapnel needs to update that page. Udell at CGOnline gave it a 4 of 5.

http://www.cgonline.com/reviews/combatcomm-02a-r1.html

-Andrew

"So yeah, the "grogs" as Dean puts it can be their own worst enemy."

Yeah, sounds a lot like the hardcore flight sim crowd a couple of years ago.

As for graphics in a wargame: when I've reviewed in this genre, I'm looking for both aesthetics (sp) and the effectiveness of the interface. "Nato" graphics are fine if they offer the information needed in an effective manner. In fact, I prefer them in a counter-based wargame over tank and infantry graphics. But also realize that, while they may be fine for those of us who grew up playing Panzer Blitz and ASL, the other 99% of the readers aren't going to be too enamoured of them. Of course, that's why God invented screenshots, right? So readers can get a good look at the counters and map and decide how big a deal it is to them.

Still - a game doesn't have to be ugly just because it's a hardcore wargame. Remember the late lamented Road to Moscow? I did a long preview of that for Scott Udell at CGS+/CGM/CGO way back when, and even though it was a few years ago, those were some beautiful graphics. And even though it was a hardcore wargame, the super detailed map made you feel as if you were a WWII general looking at a real map on a map table.

Umm.. I have nothing to do with videogamenews.net, except we used to host them and helped them with some programming. It is not a joint project. We don't even host them anymore. But good try.

Chet
I hope I do not offend anyone with this correction.

Irony... Weakening... Site... no longer joint project... but... site operator... is now and forever shall be... your good friend...

To be honest we have also kindof got off the point also.

Yes the graphics will always be an issue, but I will also say this I have heard folks complainging about graphics in wargames, the developers change them to something more 3D or such and then the other wargamers complain that they aren't functional. It's a two edge sword mainly because wargame graphics are meant to convey a lot of info at a glance. I think even if you made the NATO related icons look fancier the folks we are talking about would probably still not "get it".

But the original point foes beyond just graphics. More than once lately we have had reviewers who simply got assigned the games that DON'T understand anything about the genre. Let's say someone got a hard core RPG who really didn't care or had never played an RPG. You MIGHT get a fair review if they read the manual and do the research, but more than likely you will just find someone frustrated to meet a deadline and in the process end up with a poor review. I would say half of the reviewers I deal with now (and again most of these guys are fairly new) don't even read the manual and expect the game to just be instantly available to them. If the same treatment had been given to SE:IV we wouldn't have received one positive review, since it is an in depth game that requires careful consideration to be reviewed properly.

If a reviewer wants to rant about graphics that is fine, but I would also like them to complain about whether they like our Fog of War rules, or our Command and Control rules, or how we handle Line of Sight, or how we handle morale, etc.

That is what a quality review should do. And just like the avault review we got dinged on graphics again BUT the reviewer took the time to understand why other parts of the game were strong. That is all we are really asking for.

And actually it goes beyond our traditional wargames. In a game like Remote Assault (which again was what the good avault review was based on) there are some folks who want to compare it to Starcraft or something similiar. Because the game breaks into a lot of new areas they instead just pound it for not being the same old RTS game (which BTW they will then complain about that there is no innovation in the genre) but miss all of the new an innovative ideas it blends together and the fact that the AI is about the best tactical AI I have ever seen.

That is the main point, the graphics issue being secondary. When I did reviews I always made sure to analyze a game from all aspects and there were VERY few instances where I just totally trashed a game (the main one being Dark Earth ;)) instead of reviewing it for the game I want it to be.

And again the folks who are posting here are folks I would expect fair reviews out of, but those other folks well I wouldn't trust them to review just about anything.

And finally I have received several emails from smaller (and not so small) developers who congradulated Sarge for making a public statement about a problem they have all seen this year. In fact one very prominent indy developer and publisher told me that he was about at the point to just throw up his hands and basically "give up" on reviews alltogether. It's easy to knock us for making such a statement, but sometimes such statements are still true.

I know Steel Beasts gets knocked fairly regularly in many reviews for its non-accelerated graphics. And yet Steel Beasts non-accelerated graphics are some of the most effective in the business. Very few games simulate rolling hills with dense forests like that in Steel Beasts.

The only other game with that level of terrain detail is Operation Flashpoint.

Richard,

You're basically fighting a losing battle. The cause is admirable and I understand your frustration; I hate seeing truly good games savaged by people who clearly don't understand them.

But most of the people in this game review business are idiots. You can't control that. These are the inner workings of dinky little web sites staffed by guys who just want to play the latest RTSs for free. You're never going to get a fair shake from them. They're idiots.

Cutting them off is one thing. But cutting them off and announcing it publically is like loudly plonking someone on Usenet. You should have the grace to just do it quietly without trying to lord it over them. I doubt they care anyway.

And, BTW, I love NATO symbology. I think all games should use it. :) But I suspect being able to read NATO symbology -- telling a paratrooper unit from a machine gunner from a submarine, for instance -- will end up like being able to read Morse code.

-Tom

- --- -- .. ... .-. .. --. .... - .-.-.-

Actually I was surprised to see it brough up here.

Just like when we made our declaration on big time publishers (in much the same way battlefront.com did at the same time) 2 years ago we decided to make this public as well.

I don't think it will hurt and if nothing else we get folks talking about the issues, that is what is important.

Plus Sarge has to have something to vent at, it's the only thing that keeps him from heading on over to Central Asia ;).

But that's another story...

-.-. --- --- .-.. / .. / -.. --- -. .----. - / -.- -. --- .-- / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . / -... ..- - / .. / -.. .. -.. / - .... .. ... / --- -. / - .... . / .. -. - . .-. -. . - / .-- .. - .... / .- / -- --- .-. ... . / -.-. --- -.. . / - .-. .- -. ... .-.. .- - . .-.

- --- --

"Actually I was surprised to see it brough up here."

I'm always looking for offbeat gaming news, and Sarge is offbeat!

I wasn't trying to editorialize on the front page, other than to say it was a bit weird, which I think it was.

One thing I'd like to see more of is computer wargames really take advantage of being computer games and not just computerized versions of tabletop games. And that's an idea I borrowed from Bruce Geryk, who raised it in a CGW column.

LOL! er, I mean .-.. --- .-..!

... .... --- .-- --- ..-. ..-. ... ;-)

.-.

Heh - somehow I figured you might be able to read those, Raphael. ;)

---

Quote:

I don't think it will hurt and if nothing else we get folks talking about the issues, that is what is important.

---

If i could interject a word into the conversation regarding reviewing of games in general, i think the reviewing industry/buisness (and concurrently the computer game marketers) have yet to comprehend or accept that there are different ages of gamers at different levels of maturity - something reflected constantly by the cartoonish box covers on even the most realistic and 'grogy' game. Its as though ever game review has to be written for (and often by) pre-college teenagers, since (obviously) all gamers are male teenaged pube's. One day, probably not in my lifetime though, gaming will be just like movies, in having different sections and genres for different ages and maturity levels. But more than likely it will be more cartoon army men chewing cigars with cartoon explosions and cartoon fire. Go get 'em Johnny!

Before this spirals off into more "reviewers suck" stuff...I don't think anyone should start lumping us all into one big bag. There are at least 20 to 30 guys posting here that write for CGM or CGW; print magazines. I really don't think many of them (hopefully including myself) qualify as the sort of hacks that write "for pre-college teenagers, since (obviously) all gamers are male teenaged pube's". The guys here are way beyond that most of the time.

One problem with an editorial like this is you're not pointing at specific instances or singling anyone out and that makes it seem like we're all to blame. There's often a much broader sampling of opinions on any one game and some are willing to commit more than others to the review process.

I'm finding it amusing that Adrenaline Vault is being singled out as having done a GOOD job given that they're often less than forthcoming with opinions that might show a game in a poor light. Doesn't everyone get good reviews at Avault?

Finally...picking and choosing who you send reviews to can smack of looking for favoritism. If you get a bad review, all of a sudden that mag or site is on your shit list? Where do you draw that line? Should you draw that line? It's fine to not send a copy to Joe Blow Game Site, but if you're saying you'll cut out CGW now that they gave you a review you disagree with...well, that's just stacking the deck in your favor. You may as well not send out any review copies at all since no one will be able to believe you're getting anything but paid for praise.

Yer playin' with fire.

--Dave

Would I be right in assuming Shrapnel's latest wargames don't offer an option to switch between military symbols and actual unit graphics ?

Microprose was offering this option 15 years ago with their early wargaming efforts.

As a grognard who cut his teeth on many cardboard counter wargames (Third Reich included) I have moved on. I still enjoy my hardcore wargame but I simply do not have the time and patience anymore to be chasing spreadsheets around the computer screen.

I still think Combat Mission represents a quantum leap in hardcore wargames and I believe every other wargame developer needs to head in this direction to survive.

Otherwise don't expect to sell many copies of your game to anyone apart from an increasingly shrinking hardcore marketplace.

I'm not a wargamer. I want to get that out front, so keep that in mind.

No game, regardless of genre, should have to be ugly to be functional. More and more RTSs these days are moving to 3D -- some have met with more success than others, but it seems to be possible.

My point? If you want to sell lots of games, you've got to be trying to re-invent the genre, and do something that hasn't been done a thousand times before. Especially if you want to draw in mainstream gamers to the wargame genre. Maybe it's sad, but graphics have a lot to do with selling the game. If I'm comparing game A and game B in the store, looking at the boxes, the better looking game is probably the one I'll choose. I know that superficial, but it's true.

I haven't played any of the games in question, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Sure, it has to be a good game first and foremost, but don't underestimate the importance of looking good -- that'll go a long way in the eyes of the general public.

It'll be darn tough to get a game that looks good enough for the general public and plays well enough for the grogs, but that should be your goal with every game released.

And just to show you that you can't please everybody, I tried the Remote Assault demo when it was released. While the graphics didn't bother me at all, I didn't like the game because it used hit points for the damage model instead of penetration.

I suppose im not refering specificially to the level of writing but the mediums under which they are published seem to aim towards the majority younger audience; clearly everyone here is quite literate and thoughtful. And i suppose as well im just stating that the marketing of games themselves, whether or not they are 'really' designed for them, is or has been tuned to younger gamers for so long its not even questioned anymore. In other words - if there were a broad consensus and a medium which specifically targeted older gamers, Shrapnel wouldn't have as much problem getting fair reviews since it would be understood that they made 'adult' games that younger (or immature) gamers wouldn't touch. Without that preconception, all games are judged at the same level aka. Wargame next to Red Alert 2. But making off-topic remarks is my modus operandi...

Even the computer counterpart of the art-house developer has to understand that they need to offer something special, perhaps daring, but at least innovative to make up for the lack of tinsel and glitter. I tried Space Empires IV, for example, but was dissapointed with the game overall. I could stand poor graphic and poor sound, and i could stand bugs from such a small programming team (heck i registered the old shareware game Inner Space (asteroids made of your exe files ^^) oh so long ago). What i disliked was the lack of AI, of innovation in design, of interesting balance. Unfortunately these are real and substantial flaws that even a small, independant developer must see as detrimental. Just being a small developer in a world of conglomerates and global releases doesn't mean that this fact, in and of itself, obligates the intelligent, urbane gamer to support them, unfortunatly. Recreations of years old games, popular in their time, without daring or at least attempting "something completely different" makes them less a game and more a nostalgic reunion or scenic byway.

The Combat Mission example is a dangerous one, though. I love the game, and I'm looking forward to the sequel. But it's a very specific type of game, covering a very specific type of combat. It's a tactical game system, and the full 3D map and unit deal works very well when you are representing individual tanks and guns. But that paradigm IMO would suck rocks for, say, a game where your maneuver elements are battalions. I have yet to see a better metaphor for that level of game than the top-down, hex 'n' counter setup. I suppose a hex-less map would be fine, maybe preferable in many ways, but representing larger formations like battalions and regiments seems best done with standard military symbology. Yes, you can ditch the counter metaphor, and one day maybe we'll get representations of a units footprint and frontage (maybe Decisive Action does this already?), but the essential visual cue is still going to have to be some sort of standard symbology, or your are going to have mass confusion.

If you are doing a wargame that simulates division/corps level operations with battalion level maneuver units, you are pretty much going to have to use representation similar to what the military uses and has used for ages. It works, and most wargamers want that sort of thing. I also suspect that there are very few non-grogs who care about games at this level, while tactical games are going to garner much more cross-over support.

That being said, innovation is needed. Good looks are needed--I hate ugly games. I don't have enough time to play all the games I want to anyhow, and I'm damn sure not going to play butt-ugly ones.

Well, I think you have missed the whole point of the article. It isn't just about graphics. It's about giving so much weight to graphics, rather than what is important - the game play. I'll say it again - it's a game not a work of art.

And, it really would be nice to spend three, four million on the graphics and graphic engine, but it would never make money and we and our developers would be out of business. The audience isn't that large. We are not trying to bring the "mainstream" gamers into our market - that's a losing cause - but we are trying not to turn off those that are in our market, glance at a review and say oh it only got a 70% rating. Not knowing that the 30% knocked off was almost entirely for grpahics (we assume this since it is the only NEGATIVE comment made about the game).

You wold be surprised at how hard it is to "get the word out". Two years and 11 games later, we still get daily letters from those who have just found us. Or, the ones that really hurt, are and I'll quote here from one letter:

"I read a review of Danger Forward that basically said it was a waste of money - that the graphics were so bad that you couldn't even play the game... I recently was at a friends house and saw the second game in the series, Desert Rats, and really thought the graphics were well done. So I bought both games and have been playing them almost nonstop for the last month."

--Sarge

"Recreations of years old games, popular in their time, without daring or at least attempting "something completely different" makes them less a game and more a nostalgic reunion or scenic byway."

You're kidding, right? Please tell me you're joking. Did you just say that just because the concept is "old" that any games coming out now using that system aren't games? That a game is only a game if it has something "different"?

Probably poor, hasty, wordchoice. I think he means that just because a small developer is boldly headed off the beaten commercial track doesn't mean they get a pass on quality of either art direction or gameplay. His beef seems to be with Space Empires which, quite frankly, didn't rock my homeworld either.

Sarge: What can you do? As others have pointed out already there are different sites and magazines for different audiences. You can't really control what a potential player turns to for information - and if he doesn't know about sites that better mesh with his personal interests and tastes he's stuck with mainstream publications that aren't really tailored to him or the designers that would make a Love Connection.

Best bet is for wargame review sites and sites with more mature tastes in games (and I don't mean that in a purient way) to actually take out ads in print publications or affiliate with mainstream gaming sites or historical journals or sports magazines, whatever, so they can build up a readership that serves both the public, the developers and the publication within that niche.

"(we assume this since it is the only NEGATIVE comment made about the game)."

The reason I hate "ratings" (and I know I'm a voice in the wilderness.) If people read the review, then little damage is done - those for whom graphics are important will be warned and those who look at the rest of the review and the screenshots and decide the looks are good enough will ignore the criticism.

'In other words - if there were a broad consensus and a medium which specifically targeted older gamers, Shrapnel wouldn't have as much problem getting fair reviews since it would be understood that they made 'adult' games that younger (or immature) gamers wouldn't touch.'

Is this a variant of the Roberta Williams argument?

'It really would be nice to spend three, four million on the graphics and graphic engine'

No one wants Diablo in wargaming format. A reasonable pile of cash to artists (a year's salary? A couple) should be able to net you a much better looking game. The problem, IMHO, is that wargame designers don't even try to make decent looking graphics anymore.

---

Quote:

It really would be nice to spend three, four million on the graphics and graphic engine

---

And on the economics of cool addins--

In 1991, you'd spend $70 ($88.95 in 2000 dollars: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/) on an Ultima made by about 10 people in about a year and a half, and get a nice cloth map.

In 2001, you spend $40 (in today's money) on a game made by 30-40 people in about two and a half years.

Leaving out the order of magnitude or more of marketing costs since then.

Some of the arguments being made above are about the pains of changing from a boutique industry to a mass market one.

"A reasonable pile of cash to artists (a year's salary? A couple) should be able to net you a much better looking game."

And we would go broke. I think you overestimate the size of the audience. If it took us two years (even one year and the salaries invloved) to make a wargame of the like of Desert Rats we wouldn't be around. That's the problem right there. The review industry doesn't understand the economics. The modders aren't responsible for profits - they can take their time and do what they want. Unfortunately, we can't.

Of course, everyone could just get out of this business and let it die off, which is what I am really hearing here. Sorry, but we are not ready to give up on it. We just need to change the rules, which, I believe, was Sarge's point.

"What most reviewers seem to be complaining about is linked to the fact that it looks like you don't even try. Frankly, looking at that Desert Rats map screenshot, you could just as easily have scanned some old board wargame and had an improvement. I'm beginning to wonder if you're simply throwing around these huge numbers just to have an excuse for the poor reviews and nothing more."

I'd have to agree, and it seems to me that the presentation problems go beyond the quality of the graphics. One of the screenshots on the official page for Desert Rats is labeled "flail tanks lead the way." Looking at that screen, I can see that they are tanks by the oval icons, but how do I know that they're flail tanks as opposed to any other kind of tank? Also, I see what appears to be a strenghth indicator on the icons, but that's all the information there is. How do I tell which unit is which, except, I fear, by clicking on or passing the pointer over each icon, one at a time?

Compare Desert Rats to, for example, The Ardennes Offensive. There's a hex-based, top-down wargame that's so traditional unit losses are expressed in step reductions. Yes, I know that Shrapnel is a small house compared to SSG/SSI, but Ardennes is a four-year old title, and there's no way that millions were spent on those graphics. Yet, they're both colorful and informative. With years-old models like that hanging out there, I have to agree with Dave that it looks like Shrapnel didn't even try on the presentation.

"The review industry doesn't understand the economics."

I think you might be surprised at how much some of the more experienced reviewers here do understand about the economics. I will admit, however, that I don't understand how difficult a task it would be in this case to upgrade the map and icon graphics.

Now - remember this is from someone who thinks Diablo 2 is very cool, but if I had to choose I'd choose Nethack over Diablo 2 because the gameplay is better. I loved the SimCanada wargames, which had NO graphics at all. But, without meaning to attack the graphics in Desert Rats, how long would it take to have a decent artist create a superb map and some enhanced icons? And of course, there is a chicken and egg issue - would the enhanced graphics (we're not talking OpFlash or Combat Mission graphics here, just very nice top-down wargame graphics) create enough additional sales to offset the cost?

Tim Brooks:
"The review industry doesn't understand the economics."

You might be surprised, Tim. Just because we disagree does not mean we don't understand. ;)

"We just need to change the rules, which, I believe, was Sarge's point."

The market makes the rules, if you're trying to sell them a product. And the market likes good graphics. In fact, they like graphics so much that screenshot galleries get more traffic than equivalent editorial on web sites, and one of the most common complaints I've heard about game mags is that the screenshots aren't large or plentiful enough.

I'll be very interested to watch how you're going to change public perception and their desire to really use those GeForce 2s and 3s.

Best of luck.

The only economics the reviewer or consumer should understand is the retail price. The price people pay for your product. If rival games are somehow doing a better job on their budget then you are, well, what should that mean to someone forking over $40 for your game?

-Andrew
PS: And to Kevin Perry... Where were you shopping? I don't recall any PC game being above $50 in the early nineties. Ultima 5 was $49 at Egghead when I bought it (which was probably the week of release). I know this because the damn price tag is still soldered on the box. Also, back in 1990 wasn't 30,000 units sold a major success? Now 100,000 is a failure. The audience has grown, which justifies a lower average price.

(I do recall some Sega Genesis games going for $70. Like Strider.)

-ANdrew

Bub: thanks for ignoring that I'm in the wrong darn thread :)

Anyway, average retail price has gone way down, even without inflation. Meanwhile, cost of production has gone way, way up, probably out of control up.

Re: your other concerns, thus my comment about the boutique vs. mass market sensibilities. And I wasn't shopping then, I was working in a Babbage's in Evanston IL.

On topic:

No one but Tim Brooks can speak authoritatively about (our neighbor) Shrapnel's economic strategies. They are cleaving to a specialist market, which is fine and I bless them for it. In the same breath, I agree with Bub's comment that the economics the consumer respects are the ones he or she sees.

If I may, I would compare Shrapnel with Jeff Vogel's Spiderweb Software. Spiderweb doesn't get great reviews for its graphics, et al., but it generally receives favorable notices from RPG fans. No matter how Grumpy Vogel gets, he understands that his products are not mainstream, and doesn't grouse (at least publicly) about that.

Looking over this post, I don't think I've violated my rule about not badmouthing a fellow game company or praising one. If I have, I apologize.

In the early '90s you could indeed find games priced at $70+ at EB and Waldensoft and the like--if, like me, you lived in a small town with no competition. When Best Buy came to Athens, GA, the local Waldensoft had to drop its prices. The guy there told me they had three tiers of prices--the lowest, for areas with lots of competition, the middle tier, for areas with some competition, and the highest tier (the "bend over" tier) for areas with no competition. I paid $72 for MicroProse's F-117A I think, and the Sierra games were also uniformly expensive. This is one reason why mailorder software stores grew big in this era.

Anyhow, on the issue of graphics, cost, and reviewers, well, I have to agree with Andrew that the consumer doesn't care about the economics, beyond the game's price. Likewise, the reviewer shouldn't be worrying about how much the game cost to develop, either, not directly. Yes, we often take into account that a game is from a smaller publisher with a small budget, for a limited audience. But there's a limit to how far a reviewer writing for a general-audience (within computer games that is) can go in protecting niche titles. Whether you like it or not, every game is compared to every other by the gaming public, at last unconsiously. If you do a role-playing game, people WILL combare it to the BioWare titles. If you do a shooter, people WILL compare it to Quake III. If you do a RTS, folks WILL compare it to StarCraft and Age of Empires. Doesn't matter if you paid three guys from Uzbekistan $41 and a live chicken to program it in three weeks--the comparisons are there.

Is it fair? Yes and no. Obviously the amount of money poured into a game has a direct bearing on the result (usually), and you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. But, from the gamer's point of view, money can go either to a game that looks like a million bucks, or one that doesn't. You can only sell less than state of the art games if the people buying them feel they have some quality or qualities that make such a purchase worthwhile. That can be gameplay, price, subject matter, whatever, but they have to have something.

Unless a reviewer is working for a very focused publication that reviews specific titles for a specific audience (a wargame site, a flight sim site, etc.) the review is going to have to speak to a broad audience. You have to review the game partly from the perspective of the expectations of the gaming public you're writing for. Of course, the most important thing is to review a game from your perspective, but there's the rub: most of us like great looking games. While good reviewers have long lambasted pretty games with no soul, and been pretty tolerant of great games that lack something in the graphics department, there's no denying that pretty looks help a whole lot, and ugly looks make getting a good review harder. Why? Because no one wants to play ugly games.

Kinda comes full circle, eh?

"I'll be very interested to watch how you're going to change public perception and their desire to really use those GeForce 2s and 3s."

That's not "our" market. In fact, if we wrote for those cards we would lose over one third of our present audience. Why do you think the graphics are so spartan in Remote Assault - we can't afford to rule out slower systems. And before you start in, yea, we know, you could all do it better.

Ahhh, forget it, this is hopeless...

"Ahhh, forget it, this is hopeless..."

I'm curious - where, specifically, are the reviews that say the game sucks purely because of graphics? And are those reviews in outlets that your target readers read?

JL

'Now - remember this is from someone who thinks Diablo 2 is very cool, but if I had to choose I'd choose Nethack over Diablo 2 because the gameplay is better. I loved the SimCanada wargames, which had NO graphics at all.'

Same here. One of my all-time favorite games is the Israel PM sim Conflict:

Stupid URL won't work. Just go to www.theunderdogs.org and search for "Conflict."

The graphics blow, but they're perfectly functional for the game in question, even at 16 colors. No NATO icons, either. ;0

If you make games for gamers who 1) don't care about graphics, 2) have older systems that can't handle modern graphics, and 3) like fairly focused and non-mainstream topics, well, why are you concerned what mainstream, general interest publications think? Nothing we say will help or hinder your cause. You aren't going to sell your games to the guys who buy Red Alert 2 anyway. Revel in your nichedom!

The idea that you might actually sell games to people outside your niche, if only the evil reviewers would give you a fair shake, doesn't seem very compelling to me. If that's what you're thinking--I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth.

"I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth."

Sure you do Bob.

"might actually sell games to people outside your niche, if only the evil reviewers would give you a fair shake, , doesn't seem very compelling to me"

Your words not ours.

"All" we have said is review the game for the market that buys it. If wargamers aren't interested in the latest greatest graphics, then don't make it 30%-40% of the score you give the game. Because the people who buy Red Alert 2 aren't going to buy a hardcore wargame "even" if it has great graphics. And you might turn off those people who would buy it, by a score that doesn't represent what they are interested in - such things as AI, game play, realsim, interface, and on and on.

Tim:
"That's not "our" market. In fact, if we wrote for those cards we would lose over one third of our present audience. Why do you think the graphics are so spartan in Remote Assault - we can't afford to rule out slower systems. And before you start in, yea, we know, you could all do it better."

Actually, I'll be the first to admit I can't do graphics for shit. I'm sort of average with manipulating 'em, but creation? Fuhgeddaboudit.

And I know that's not your present audience. But "your" audience is clearly not enough any more, at least from that article. I guess that was sort of my point--Sarge is bitching that you/they need new blood to continue to grow, yet that new blood you need has GeForce 2s and wants to use them. Hell, every single mainstream system I can think of right now has at least a GF2 on board, in fact.

Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

"Ahhh, forget it, this is hopeless..."

Just trying to reconcile what you/they/Sarge says you want with how you're going about it is all. Can't quite figure it out; doesn't make sense to me. I get the feeling that I'm missing something important--I'd almost have to be--and I was hoping maybe I could figure it out here.

But if it's hopeless, then to hell with it, I guess.

Hm. And then Robert posted and said just about what I was trying to say, but only better. Then this:

""All" we have said is review the game for the market that buys it. If wargamers aren't interested in the latest greatest graphics, then don't make it 30%-40% of the score you give the game. Because the people who buy Red Alert 2 aren't going to buy a hardcore wargame "even" if it has great graphics. And you might turn off those people who would buy it, by a score that doesn't represent what they are interested in - such things as AI, game play, realsim, interface, and on and on."

Ah ha. Okay. So you don't want to expand and grow then? See, this is why I'm confused. On the one hand, you've got "your" audience that doesn't really care about graphics--but then "your" audience doesn't give too much of a crap about what mainstream pubs have to say anyway in "their" niche. So what does it matter what the scores are in them? "Your" audience doesn't think mainstream pubs care about them anyway, for the most part.

And one last question:

"Because the people who buy Red Alert 2 aren't going to buy a hardcore wargame "even" if it has great graphics."

How do you know? What hardcore wargame with great graphics are you using for this assertion?

>>If wargamers aren't interested in the latest greatest graphics, then don't make it 30%-40% of the score you give the game.

I don't know that anyone weighs these kinds of things as absolutely as that... well, except for Gamespot with its magic reviewing formula.

Saying a game has blah graphics doesn't necessarily mean that it's the sole reason a game got a 2.5 star review. If the review didn't many any other criticisms that's either a bad review or they think shiny objects are cool.

And you know what? That's fine. And any wargame fan that reads that review will be able to see this and dismiss it. Will that make you potentially lose some "fringe" gamer who might be interested in one of your products? Maybe, but they're better off getting in with something simpler anyway, then migrating over to your stuff.

I think reviewers, as a whole, put way too much emphasis on graphics. Unless they're truly extraordinary in either direction, I typically spend one sentence on graphics, if I mention them at all. Besides, screenshots tell you more than the text ever could.

I'm sympathetic to your problem, but consider this: they're helping get the word out about the existence of your products. Getting a review, even if it's mediocre and bags on the graphics, puts the name out in front of a few hundred thousand people who may have never heard of your product and who can look at the screenshots and determine for themselves if the graphics matter.

(Of course if the review says, "The AI is dreadful, the interface byzantine, the scenarios designed by a three-year old," you may have additional problems.)

"And I know that's not your present audience. But "your" audience is clearly not enough any more, at least from that article. I guess that was sort of my point--Sarge is bitching that you/they need new blood to continue to grow, yet that new blood you need has GeForce 2s and wants to use them. Hell, every single mainstream system I can think of right now has at least a GF2 on board, in fact."

Bill, you are assuming that we have reached every war / strategy gamer in the world. Thanks for the vote of confidence, but it just isn't true. And, even wargamers pick up a magazine or surf the gaming web from time to time. The other thing you seem to miss is that not everyone, and I bet most people don't, read that many reviews from beginning to end. They scan - most - looking for the rating. So all this talk of they can read the review and find out blah, blah, blah. It just isn't that way.

"Ah ha. Okay. So you don't want to expand and grow then?"

As I said before, growth doesn't have to mean mainstream. Not only have we not reached all the wargamers, we haven't reached alot of the other niche markets that Bob wants us to revel in and some of which would probably cross over quite well.

So the next question will be, if you don't want the mainstream market then why worry with the mainstream publications? In case you haven't noticed you have been, pretty much, the only game in town.

But, that was also our point - the money we spend sending review copies to those sites that don't get what we are about will now go to other forms of promotion. So Bob Mayer, tell your friends at Computer Games to cancel the full page ad we just recently contracted for in your magazine. We'll go revel in our nichedom! In fact, I'm heading that way now...

I don't really get it, Tim. If you want to reach more wargamers, and you think wargamers might read some of these sites and pubs you're not happy with, why not trust these wargamers to filter a reviewer's comments?

I bet I understand MMORPGs better than you do. If you took it upon yourself to review one, and your review showed your lack of understanding of the genre, I'd catch that. I'd filter that knowledge as I read your review. That doesn't mean you might not have some interesting things to say, and if you were writing about an MMORPG I hadn't heard about, I might be sparked to find out more about it, even if your review was negative.

I think you're being too sensitive to negative criticism, in other words. Besides, you're just going to get some reviews now and then where the reviewer does a lousy job. I can see how that would be extremely upsetting, but is forfeiting that exposure a good idea?

That's an excellent point, Mark, and Steve, Jeff, and Chet touched on it too. Give the gamers some credit to sort things out for themselves. Just because somebody writes that the morale system in Wayne Gretzky's Panzer Commander is stupid doesn't mean it's now set in stone that the game sucks. Savvy readers will pick up on the lack of knowledge and familiarity of the reviewer.

I take all reviews with a grain of salt, and I think most gamers who read them do as well. Actually, it's probably more, 'Would you like some review with your salt?' A bad review from Mark and Tom isn't the kiss of death, but it does give me insights into the gameplay, and why it doesn't suit their tastes. I'll take that information and judge for myself. If Bruce Geryk pans a game it doesn't mean... wait, bad example. I'll usually buy any game that gets the Geryk seal of disapproval.


- Raife

Tim:
"Bill, you are assuming that we have reached every war / strategy gamer in the world. Thanks for the vote of confidence, but it just isn't true. And, even wargamers pick up a magazine or surf the gaming web from time to time."

Ah ha, and thus, the "X" factor is revealed. Now it makes sense. :)

"The other thing you seem to miss is that not everyone, and I bet most people don't, read that many reviews from beginning to end. They scan - most - looking for the rating. So all this talk of they can read the review and find out blah, blah, blah. It just isn't that way."

And here we get to the crux of the matter. I'll agree that most people scan for the rating first. I'll disagree that they scan for the rating, then just flip the page, never to return. If you're paying 8 to 10 bucks for a magazine, or subscribing, you'll be reading every word, believe me. I'm sure the magazine guys could back up this assertion with Plenty O' Marketing Demographic Info on how mags are used and the like.

But I guess what it boils down to is this: How stupid do you think your target audience is? Sure, you're going to lose the ADD gamer that treats mags like a flip book and scans everything looking for the pretty pictures and fast, shallow gameplay, but let's be honest: You can't lose what you never had, and even if those folks stopped to read the review, they wouldn't be picking it up anyway. I think we can agree on this.

The one thing I have noticed about all serious wargamers is that they're all fairly to extremely patient, and most--if not all--are highly analytical. This doesn't sound like the type of target audience that would be put off by a low or middling score, especially if it were in the genre they were interested in. I'd think, of all the possible audiences, that this group would be least likely to just take someone's word for it, and they, most of all, would want to know why. Thus, reading the entire review.

So maybe I'm giving them too much credit, or maybe you're not giving them enough, eh? The truth's probably somewhere in the middle. ;)

"So the next question will be, if you don't want the mainstream market then why worry with the mainstream publications? In case you haven't noticed you have been, pretty much, the only game in town."

You answered that question above--because your audience does peruse those pubs and those sites. Frequently enough to make the reviewing and treatment a cause for concern. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation, would we?

(And, um, I'm flattered that you think I work for a mainstream publication, but I don't. Don't get me wrong; I'd like to get back into game-related editorial someday. Sooner the better. Right now, though, the market's a wee bit tight. Sigh.)

"But, that was also our point - the money we spend sending review copies to those sites that don't get what we are about will now go to other forms of promotion."

More than fine with me. Now that I know why, hey, your business, your money, do whatcha like. I don't know that I'd have gone about it the same way Sarge/you did, but that's an opinion, nothing more.

Best of luck. :)

Bill:

Thanks for your comments, very insightful, and I agree with alot of what you said. But:

"The one thing I have noticed about all serious wargamers is that they're all fairly to extremely patient, and most--if not all--are highly analytical. This doesn't sound like the type of target audience that would be put off by a low or middling score, especially if it were in the genre they were interested in."

We have now been doing this long enough to know that it does affect sales. At first we didn't think it would either, but that has proven false. Don't get me wrong though, there is a core of gamers that act just the way you stated. They make their buying decisions on what they like to play and don't seem the least put off by negative or less than glowing reviews. However, there are those that do seem to "listen" to the reviews and this is enough that it really makes quite a difference in sales numbers. Are these the fringe gamers? I don't think it is that easy - to classify one group, it's probably a mixture of all the groups.

And we are not trying to do away with the review process. We like it and think it has it's place in our marketing efforts. We just have realized that there are sites that will never give our games a fair shake, because they either 1)don't like the genre, 2)are ignorant of the genre and how to judge these products, and/or 3)don't have access to those reviewers who should be reviewing the genre.

"I don't know that I'd have gone about it the same way Sarge/you did..."

Yea, but we tend to be a little controversial from time to time and don't mind saying what's on our mind. Nobody can say we aren't honest and above board. And we have seen quite a large surge in traffic, especially to Sarge's page which is getting over three times the traffic that it usually does. We felt it needed to be said.

Why a lot of this industry holds every game up to the same standards is beyond us. Look at reviews about autos for instance, they are all reviewed in their respective categories - different criteria are used depending on whether it is a pickup, luxury, economy car, whatever. All we are saying is that this isn't one huge market with a single mindset. The market can and should be divided into where their interests lie in a game they would buy, and the reviews should reflect this.

It may sound like we are whining, but sometimes you have to stand up to affect change.

"the money we spend sending review copies to those sites that don't get what we are about will now go to other forms of promotion. So Bob Mayer, tell your friends at Computer Games to cancel the full page ad we just recently contracted for in your magazine."

That's either said with a smile and a wink, or you've lowered yourself to just arguing for the sake of arguing, since Scott gave a Desert Rats a very nice review in CGO/CGM.

I understand your frustration at weenies who don't have a clue writing reviews of your stuff - I even wrote an article for QT3 on that kind of crap. And if I were running a company like yours, I can immediately list a number of web sites that I'd never send a review copy to, as I know they would put some kid on the review who would take about 15 minutes with it before writing his review. Screw 'em, why waste money sending them product.

But I would be really, really surprised if you lost any potential customers that just glanced at the rating and said "wow, I'd really like a good hardcore wargame, and here's a rare review of one, but the rating is only a 70 so I'll just skip the review and the game." First, I know a lot of wargamers, I am one, including people who are only computer wargamers, and they generally know that they have to dig into the meat of a review to understand what the game is about. I've written a lot of wargaming reviews and I'd get email about the reviews, potential questioning even more details than were in the review. As others have said, the market you're after just isn't the kind of folks who buy a game because the rating is 4 stars or 85% without reading the review, or skip it for the converse reason.

Also, there are obviously web sites that are very targeted to the grognard and the folks that read those usually buy EVERY decent computer wargame that comes out. I was surprised that there isn't a review of Desert Rats over at www.wargamer.com, for example.

FWIW

This is what I was talking about. Wargames developers should collaborate with wargames focused sites for special promotions and look to them primarily for reviews. Wargames focused sites should reach out to broader based (mainstream) publications and sites and offer themselves as an auxilliary service.

The goal should be getting good information out to people who can best use it. If most wargamers, or potential wargamers, don't know that there are publications and sites that cater to their needs and expectations then that's nobody's fault but the consumer's. Help 'em out.

---

Quote:

Why a lot of this industry holds every game up to the same standards is beyond us. Look at reviews about autos for instance, they are all reviewed in their respective categories - different criteria are used depending on whether it is a pickup, luxury, economy car, whatever.

---

>>Why a lot of this industry holds every game up to the same standards is beyond us.

Because that's what readers seem to expect. Game players are a rather schizophrenic bunch, and reviews mirror that. Every review tries to touch on the things they feel every gamer wants to read about, which is futile. Reviewers should focus on what they think is important; if the graphics in a wargame don't affect your enjoyment, don't mention them. Don't say, "The graphics are ugly" unless it really negatively impacts the game. When you're dealing with word counts, unless something's extraordinarily bad or good, it's not worth bringing up. (And here's the great benefit to print over online; with limited words, you should focus on the important things, not try to cover everything with equal weight... just because you can put up a 10,000 word review doesn't mean you should.)

Anyway, here's the template for most game reviews:

Opening Summary
Describe Game/Gameplay
Discuss Graphics/Sound/Presentation
Criticize
Closing Summary

Most reviewers don't have to skill, creativity, or desire to play around with this format, and most editorial entities enforce it. A site like Avault, which actually breaks out the discussion into arbitrary categories, even makes it overt. They think they have to review all games the exact same way because that's what the readers expect. And they do expect this, to some extent, but because they're so formulaic, reviews feel compelled to give equal weight to each of these things, which is loopy.

>>The market can and should be divided into where their interests lie in a game they would buy, and the reviews should reflect this.

This essentially requires interpreting the desires of the readers, which are all over the map. A reviewer can't expect to have a great understanding anyone's interests but their own and the review should reflect how things affect their own enjoyment of the game, not how they predict the market will react.

"That's either said with a smile and a wink, or you've lowered yourself to just arguing for the sake of arguing, since Scott gave a Desert Rats a very nice review in CGO/CGM."

It was said to make a point. Was I serious? About halfway so. Although we just heard that we won't have either of our two new releases reviewed in their print mag before Christmas - we are just too small. Although, obviously, not too small for their advertising department.

"I was surprised that there isn't a review of Desert Rats over at www.wargamer.com, for example."

http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/cc2_desert_rats_main.asp

"That would be feasible if you weren't selling your games at the same price we pay for a top publisher's high dollar development game."

The major publisher's have economy of scale. Genre specific products, such as wargames, don't. You either charge a premium or go out of business. Everyone can name an awesome wargame that had great graphics, superior this, etc, put out by a major publisher. And where are these developers and publishers now. They have morphed into something else, because they didn't charge a premium for a market specific product - they are out of business or out of the wargaming business. It wasn't profitable. Rule #1 of Business 101.

Also, and just as important. We give the same or more gameplay. So the dollars per hour of enjoyment are usually actually better and never any worse.

"I've looked at your games a number of times and considered buyng Space Empires IV more than once. I usually end up passing simply because the price is too high for a game I likely wouldn't have enough time to really dig into."

And one of our most successful products even at that price. Doing numbers that rival Combat Mission. So would we do more sales with a lower price tag. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I will admit, pricing is one of the hardest things to guage. The key, though, is if we sell a game at 25% less, we have to do about 33% more sales to get the same profit. Some titles just wouldn't make up the difference, never mind if we sold it for 50% less.

"but play by some other set of rules that you're going to make up as you go along."

Definitely. We are trying to make the War and Strategy Gaming business profitable for us and our developers. The old rules didn't work or the major publishers would still be developing scores of wargames. Do we make mistakes? Sure. But this is new territory - coming up with a set of "rules" that allows us and our developers to keep creating new products for the fans of these markets.

>>It was said to make a point. Was I serious? About halfway so. Although we just heard that we won't have either of our two new releases reviewed in their print mag before Christmas - we are just too small. Although, obviously, not too small for their advertising department.

There's no correlation between what runs in the magazine and advertising. A large majority of games we review are never advertised.

I'm not sure who told you that you're products were "too small" to run in the magazine, but I'm the only person that can specifically tell you why an article did or didn't run because its my decision, and it has nothing to do with the "size" of the products. If you want to discuss these specific matters, I can be reached at [email protected]

These are not simple decisions. I agonize every month over what gets cut, and frankly it's the worst part of my job. Trying to satisfy the needs of 300,000+ readers with varying gaming tastes, dozens of publishers of varying sizes, and an editorial staff and freelancers who all feel slighted if their product or article gets cut or shortened isn't exactly easy. We try to balance the coverage, to get as many genres in, as many small games and big games, but we have a limited budget for freelancers and a fixed amount of editorial space. We can't review every game, nor can we print every review. We end up cutting anywhere from 5-10 pages every month.

[quote]That would be feasible if you weren't selling your games at the same price we pay for a top publisher's high dollar development game. When you're charging the same for "less", there is no division of products that makes sense. Have you checked in on your company store lately? [/quote]

Could someone explain this to me? Most new major games (PC & Console) are now selling around $55-$65 US. Shrapnel is selling games around $40. Thats a good $15 to $25 dollars cheaper. Do you think they should sell games with average graphics for $10???

$55 to $65? Where are you buying your games? I'm paying $40...$49.99 at the most. Though if you wait for the Best Buy flier on a brand new game, you'll pay no more than $39.99 and often like $29.99 or lower on a brand new release.

Console games haven't broken the $49.99 barrier either. PS2, Gamecube and Xbox games are all MSRP $49.99 when they're brand new. Just where are you shopping that you're paying over $50?

Shrapnel wants $40 per game as seen in that link. Include shipping and you'll pay just as much for one of their games as a major label release. Sure, major label wargames are few and far between so their genres are being served well by Shrapnel. But consider that Space Empires IV is likely to be sold for $40 (and it'll be two years old) when Master of Orion 3 will compete on store shelves in the same space. Also, Starships Unlimited, a competing independent release in the 4x genre sells for $25 online.

Tim says that economically, they can't sell their games for less. That's fine, he's got a business to run and needs to make a profit. I only pointed out that his games are competing for the same dollar that can be spent on a major label release at the same price. That ruins his argument that reviewers take into account pricing schemes as some way to differentiate a Shrapnel game from an Electronic Arts game.

--Dave

"1)don't like the genre, 2)are ignorant of the genre and how to judge these products, and/or 3)don't have access to those reviewers who should be reviewing the genre."

Those are all major problems. As a general rule, I try to place reviews with writers that are inclined to like the genre in question, because that's the best way to generate a review that's going to be relevant to the reader.

"Although we just heard that we won't have either of our two new releases reviewed in their print mag before Christmas."

I'm not sure where you heard that, because it's not true. I'm working on assigning the review for Runesword II right now. We already did Desert Rats. But space is indeed an issue, and we never make promises about getting a game (any game) into any specific issue for that reason. I do like to cover noteworthy titles from smaller publishers, but there is no way we can cover all of them. We can't cover all the titles from large publishers, either.

The bigger problem is lead times, something that I have trouble getting publishers to understand. We're already working on our January issue, and it takes a couple of weeks to review a game. Games that I receive towards the end of this month will likely be in February. So it's not that we don't want to put any smaller titles in the December issue, but rather the fact that the December issue is already finished and at the printer.

I wonder should Tom ever get to review another FPS? His review of Deus Ex was not along the lines of popular thought on the game, should he be excluded from reviewing any other similar games because he doesn't get it? Or was he just expecting more than the game delivered and was unable to brush aside its faults?

It seems like Shrapnel wants to limit not just people who 'don't get it' but people who ask more from their war game. As soon as you ask for more, you aren't asking for a shrapnel game.

I look at a game like Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord and I think, there is a company that tried something new and broadened their games appeal by making it accessible both with gameplay and graphics, while still reaching the core war gaming audience. And I wouldn't call battlefront a big company.

Chet

Rob Merritt:
"Could someone explain this to me? Most new major games (PC & Console) are now selling around $55-$65 US. Shrapnel is selling games around $40. Thats a good $15 to $25 dollars cheaper."

PC and console games list for 55-65 bucks. First week sales will generally come in at 35-40 bucks max. A month after release, it's usually a solid 30 bucks. Three months after release, you're lookin at 10-20, if the game's still in the store by then. Of course, if it's popular it stays up there, but even then it's 39.99 or lower. Also, you don't have to pay shipping and you don't have to wait two or three days to get it--you buy a game, you drive home, you install, you play. It's that whole instant gratification thing.

So that's why their games might seem expensive.

"...there is a company that tried something new and broadened their games appeal by making it accessible both with gameplay and graphics, while still reaching the core war gaming audience."

Too true Chet. It is a hard core wargame, but it's appealing to action gamers and it's accessible to even casual players. By bringing this game to a few LAN parties locally, I've sold a few copies for Battlefront and even created brand new wargamers.

And to think, I owe it all to Bruce Geryk, who was calling it Game of the Year in April of 2000.

-Andrew

Ben:

"I'm not sure where you heard that, because it's not true."

I heard it from your camp. If it isn't true, then I do apologize. I don't normally repeat things I don't know to be true and was under the impression that this was the case.

Again sorry.

It could have been a miscommunication on our part, certainly. The reality is, as Steve says, we don't know what's going to make it into any given issue until it's done. The table of contents is in flux right up until the very end, so if anyone here ever says "that won't make it into issue X" before issue X is at the printer, take it with a few grains of salt.