Shrapnel to Take on Wargamer.com?

[Beverley]

An interesting press release came through the wires today, and it would appear that Shrapnel is going to take on the giant that is Wargamer.com, although nobody is yet saying it. A battle of the giants? Also, I notice Matrix Games, a competitor to Shrapnel, has a direct relation to Wargamer.com financially. Of course there's nothing on that site at the moment, and so it does look like a bit of a spoof. What have Shrapnel got planned?


News Release For Immediate Release


Coming Soon: TheGamingNews.com!
Independent Media For An Independent Gaming World!


Cary, NC, 07 March 2005

As more and more retail games seem to go the way of the summer blockbuster, with lots
of flash and little substance, gamers everywhere are turning to independent gaming to
bring some originality back into their game playing. Indie games, once seemingly only
focused on puzzle gaming, have become as diverse as mainstream gaming, with plenty of
strategy, RPG, adventure, and arcade games to be found. Then there are the indie titles
that don't quite fit nicely into some pre-determined niche. Often brimming with
creativity and a freshness rarely seen on retail shelf space, these are games that are often
woefully overlooked by the mainstream gaming media.

Shrapnel Games, long time independent publisher of high quality strategy games in both
digital and paper form, would like to rectify the situation faced by many independent
developers in trying to get word of their games out to the game public at large. To help
provide another voice to indie developers Shrapnel Games is pleased to announce the
brand new website, TheGamingNews (www.thegamingnews.com/). Currently under
construction and slated to go live this summer, TheGamingNews will provide complete
coverage of the independent gaming scene.

"There is a tremendous amount of ingenuity, creativity, and just plain fun that finds its
way into independent gaming," Tim Brooks, CEO and founder of Shrapnel Games had to
say on the subject. "For every plain-jane, vanilla shooter or RTS you find on the shelf at
your local Best Buy there are probably a dozen original games in the independent world
that would provide you with more hours of enjoyment than the latest clone game.
Unfortunately most people aren't even aware of these gems. Hopefully with
TheGamingNews more people will discover these wonderful games, and it will help
rekindle the love of gaming that retail gaming often extinguishes."

While Shrapnel Games is best known for conflict simulations and their fantasy/sci-fi 4X
titles, TheGamingNews aims to provide coverage of all forms of independent gaming.
And while it will be begun and owned by Shrapnel Games it is important to note that our
relationship will be quite open, with the primary mission purpose to give indie gaming
the press it deserves but rarely gets. We would like to stress that we want to keep the
relationship between Shrapnel Games and TheGamingNews transparent as opposed to
other media sites that review products from their parent company and never reveal the
relationship between the two entities. We will require that all games be treated fairly, in
an unbiased manner, and strictly judged on its merits.

Though there is little (okay, basically nothing) to see as of yet we do invite you to stop by
the site and drop us a line if you're interested in writing content for us (previews,
interviews, reviews, columns and the like) or if you're an independent developer we'd
love to add you to our contact list.

[Phoenix-D]

Sorry, but the idea of a publisher or developer sponsored web site ever being independant, complete, or unbiased seems extremely unlikely to me.

[Gandalf Parker]

Actually alot of the ones out there are already tied into one. Such as Wargamer tied to Matrix. I mean I see your point but unless you want to do one yourself its hard to see where one will happen that ISNT tied into someone. Gaining that much interest in gaming develops ties. And the "big ones" are considered to be biased by advertising money and shelfware.

Have you read the Shrapnel "About Us" link?
http://www.shrapnelgames.com/about.htm
If not then I highly recommend it in light of this discussion. I liked where it was coming from as far as tackling the publishers, and I think I like it for tackling the game sites.

[Richard]

Actually it's more than a financial relationship, Matrix Games bought Wargamer.com awhile ago. We aren't specifically going after Wargamer.com, but we're being fairly transparent that the site is owned by us from the beginning. That way people can use their own judgement to decide if they think our coverage is biased.

That isn't the main reason for the site. What is frustrating is to see a lot of quality independent games get reviewed by someone who knows nothing of the genre and it reviewing it just to get a free game. Did I tell you the story of the reviewer that I had to explain the concept of turns to (because he had only played RTS's).

We want to start a relationship with the other independent developers and publishers to put an outlet for our products out there with writers who will appreciate the offering. We also will not comment or review games in retail, this is only for those folks who either aren't in retail by chance or by choice.

[Annette]

And we promise not to vote ourselves "publisher of the year." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/redface.gif

(Moderators: Feel free to move my post if you see fit!)

[Beverley]

Richard said:
Actually it's more than a financial relationship, Matrix Games bought Wargamer.com awhile ago. We aren't specifically going after Wargamer.com, but we're being fairly transparent that the site is owned by us from the beginning. That way people can use their own judgement to decide if they think our coverage is biased.


Would you think it fair to say then that Wargamer.com is the "mouthpiece" of Matrix games?

[Richard]

Beverley said:

Richard said:
Actually it's more than a financial relationship, Matrix Games bought Wargamer.com awhile ago. We aren't specifically going after Wargamer.com, but we're being fairly transparent that the site is owned by us from the beginning. That way people can use their own judgement to decide if they think our coverage is biased.


Would you think it fair to say then that Wargamer.com is the "mouthpiece" of Matrix games?



I wouldn't say that at all. I know many of the folks who are on staff at Wargamer.com (as a former staff member myself) and I think they try to be fair. However we wanted to be pretty up front with our relationship from the beginning.

The main reason for the site is to give independent games more of a voice.

[Azselendor]

Very nice, but on the site, www.thegamingnews.com/ (http://www.thegamingnews.com/) I think the design ins't really up to snuff with it's competitors. I'm not saying it should be flashy, but it should look a bit stronger.

[Mindi]

It's a place holder at this point so we can have people contact us who are interested in contributing. It is in no way representative of what the site will actually look like.

[Gandalf Parker]

Dont change it too quickly. I majorly like what it says. It really puts out the statement right from the beginning what you guys have in mind.

Do you want "the call to go out to all the corners of the earth"? I can drop some "check this out" into some of the newsgroups it would fit in

[Richard]

Klvino [ORB] said:
Very nice, but on the site, www.thegamingnews.com/ (http://www.thegamingnews.com/) I think the design ins't really up to snuff with it's competitors. I'm not saying it should be flashy, but it should look a bit stronger.



Like Mindi said it's just a placeholder, the final site will be much different looks wise.

[Annette]

Beverley said:

Richard said:
Actually it's more than a financial relationship, Matrix Games bought Wargamer.com awhile ago. We aren't specifically going after Wargamer.com, but we're being fairly transparent that the site is owned by us from the beginning. That way people can use their own judgement to decide if they think our coverage is biased.


Would you think it fair to say then that Wargamer.com is the "mouthpiece" of Matrix games?



I'd like to reiterate what Richard has already said. We are not launching this project as an effort to "take on" wargamer.com or any other site. In fact, our news site will be geared toward all indie gaming news, not just wargames. Our intentions are to help fill a void which we believe exists in independent game coverage.

But you raise an interesting point, and I feel compelled to redirect the question to you (or to anyone reading this), "Would you think it fair to say then that Wargamer.com is the "mouthpiece" of Matrix games?"

[Combat Wombat]

Could we get better descriptions on what exactly the colums will be about that we can apply to write for. Like Coach? I don't even know where to begin wondering what that is gonna be about.

[Mindi]

Coach is sports games, Gamer is general gaming (games that don't fit into the other categories would go here) and I think Role-Player and Wargamer are self descriptive.

[Combat Wombat]

Alright that makes sense thank you.

[mac5732]

Personally, I like the idea. There are many games out there and most of the reviews are in game magazines which I tend to be skeptical of in a number of occasssions, (example, I've seen raving reviews on some games that I've played, and which IMHO were lousy and yet the reviews praised how great they were. Yes I would like to see a review site that is objective and gives fair reviews. As far as starting a war with wargamer, I don't think thats what Shrapnel has in mind. There is always room for another review site, the problem is, getting people, lst to read it, 2nd to believe the reviews are fair and honest and not tied to special interests. You might want to add a write i section where fans can also comment on the games. That way you show your review and also comments from those who've played the game.

My 2 cents

[Azselendor]

Good to know it's a placeholder, can't wait to see the real deal.

[Tim Brooks]

Klvino [ORB] said:
Good to know it's a placeholder, can't wait to see the real deal.



Check it out now:

The Gaming News (http://thegamingnews.com/)

Still only a prototype, but comments are welcome!

[mac5732]

Hey Tim, It looks great, I like the coloring and the set up, looks neat, nice job... when do you think you'll get it actually up and running so we can put the word out?

mac

[Azselendor]

It's starting to look a lot better now! Of course, I still can't wait until its completely done!

[Atrocities]

Wargamer does a great job at what it does and I doubt the press release is true. Then again I haven't read all the posts so I could be mistaken.

[Richard]

Just a clarification here, no one said this was in response to or aimed at wargamer.com. A poster came on the boards and asked if this was aimed at wargamer.com. This is in response to other issues in the game review industry.

[Instar]

How frequently must one post to this site? I might consider posting things, especially about first person shooters.

[Gandalf Parker]

Instar said:
How frequently must one post to this site? I might consider posting things, especially about first person shooters.



Indep created first-person shooters? I would actually be interested in that. Its not an area that I enjoy enough to gamble on big-company shelfware uses-the-whole-computer wait-forever-to-load games. But I wouldnt mind seeing some referrals to well-done independent programmers projects I can get for the times when Im just in the mood to shoot things.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif

[Instar]

Oh, that's true; you don't see too many independent FPS games.
For me, the trifecta of FPS games is Doom3, Half-Life2, and FarCry. Those three are the best games ever!

[War_Oberst]

Annette said:
And we promise not to vote ourselves "publisher of the year." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/redface.gif

(Moderators: Feel free to move my post if you see fit!)



Sorry, I am a newcomer here and do not whish to be rude, so please do not take this in this manner. I am thiking that this comment leaves something to be desired. Was Wargamer's article not called "Reader's Choice?" Did the reader's not choose who publisher of the year was? How can they readers choose the way any one wants them to - do Matrix pay them for their votes? Seems ridiculous to me.

I have played Shrapnel titles and have come here looking for more info on games of yours comming out soon, and am open minded enough to know wargamer's coverage is not seeming biased to me. If you make comment like this on your own site about your upcoming news site, how biased are you going to be in this regard with your coverage?

If your readers vote you publisher of the year, so be it. I do not think wargamer's Forums are going to have people saying that TheGamingnews.com is a mouthpece for shrapnel's games. Of course it is not. You do not whant this perception of your site. I have gone to wargamer's site for one year now and know it seemes to be balance and fair.

I hope you are not referring to this because whatever ill feeling you two have for each other is going to do nothing for gaming or the gaming worlds. I hope your coverage is not biased, thorought and thoughtfull like wargamer's is. otherwise you are just going to seem like your sour.

again please do not take this wrong way, I am not meaning to be nasty, but really comments like that do nothing for your site in my eye as a customer and potential byyer.

War_Oberst

[Joe 98]

Annette said:
.....and I feel compelled to redirect the question to you (or to anyone reading this), "Would you think it fair to say then that Wargamer.com is the "mouthpiece" of Matrix games?"




No. Wargamer reviews wargames from ALL publishers.
-

[Annette]

Welcome to our forums War_Oberst and thank you for posting. I appreciate your thoughtful input and have taken it under advisement. Perhaps I should have held my tongue as my odd sense of humor often leads me to trouble http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

I was hoping to make the point that TheGamingNews will be very straightforward about it's relationship with Shrapnel Games and avoid practices which may be misconstrued as self-promotion. I was quite baffled by the title of this thread and "Beverly's" perception that TGN was somehow similar to The Wargamer. TGN is intended as a vehicle for Indie Developers and Indie Gamers to come together. It will not focus on any particular genre and will include coverage of games which are self-published. Sometimes these games don't get a fair shake in mainstream press and are often reviewed by writers who are familiar only with AAA titles and may overlook the value of niche games.

[Gandalf Parker]

PLEASE take this as purely a hypothetical answer:
But IF a gaming mag had a slight tendency to provide more reviews about certain games, then it MIGHT gradually affect the redership which keeps returning to it, and it MIGHT slew the votes abit to a foregone conclusion. In fact, since such sites specialize in certain types of games that will oviously be true anyway so certain companys will have an advantage depending on how many of that type game is in their catalog.

Personally I dont read wargamer very much because those arent my kinds of games. Most of the articles dont interest me (strategy yes, war not so much). I AM interested in the new mag site since I am very interested in independents that are developing games. Im hoping this is NOT a site where WarGamer will be the obvious "other choice" because that happen if it becomes another site with a tendency to notice war games over other types. We will see how far across the spectrum they are willing to travel. No, make that able to travel since I believe in their willingness. If they can stretch it as far as... hmm what? Childrens teaching games? Maybe Moraff's games which my wife loves. Oh I know, a writeup on the game "Tranquility". Thats about as opposite from a wargame as it gets.

[Dave Erickson]

Will Shrapnel's magazine review ALL new games on the day they are released (to heighten the impact on sales), or just Shrapnel's own releases? What I'm asking is whether or not there will be timing coordination between the magazine and ALL publishers, or just some? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

(Oops, this post shows up as a response to Gandalf, but it's really to anyone who cares to answer.)

[War_Oberst]

Annette said:
Welcome to our forums War_Oberst and thank you for posting. I appreciate your thoughtful input and have taken it under advisement. Perhaps I should have held my tongue as my odd sense of humor often leads me to trouble http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif



(Forgive my English, I go to school in Texas at Rice University and am from Indonesia. I speak well enough but never coud type it well. Papers give me a headache to write them. I glad I'm not English major heh heh.)

I appreciate your reply Annette. I understand your point of view and can see how it makes some sense to a extent, but a sense of humor like that may just make you seem less objectiv. I know Matrix is heard of having spent money on the Wargamer site but I think thier writers are doing a decent job...sure matrix make the gold award (whatever it was) for publisher of the year, but Matrix publish lots of wargames, perhaps with appeael to more peopel in a wargame crowd. Their audience = wargame peopel who eat and live it.

No offence to shrapnel at all because you make good stuff to, just not in same area (make sense??). WWII, it seem, is matrix Specalty and lots of game made in that area. You game like Dragoon and BCT/Tiger are very specific and not broad in general covering a timeperiod of war. 82nd I have highe hope for and look forward to it. Just need $ to get it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Anyways my point is tat wargamer seems to do more mainstrem stuff that appael to broader audihence where as yours are good yet appael to those with narrow taste. I hope this is clear.


I was hoping to make the point that TheGamingNews will be very straightforward about it's relationship with Shrapnel Games and avoid practices which may be misconstrued as self-promotion. I was quite baffled by the title of this thread and "Beverly's" perception that TGN was somehow similar to The Wargamer. TGN is intended as a vehicle for Indie Developers and Indie Gamers to come together. It will not focus on any particular genre and will include coverage of games which are self-published. Sometimes these games don't get a fair shake in mainstream press and are often reviewed by writers who are familiar only with AAA titles and may overlook the value of niche games.




I am relative new to these Games like this, have played not long of late but schoolwork and programming take up more time than I care to give. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I read a lot of books but I go a little slow to make it sink. But maybe I am not knowing what games You mean. What small companes do 'niche' games??? I have not heard of any except in game mags.

I will be honest again, I see HORSE and think it looks cool, but a freind say it is just MULE all over again. What is MuLE, I asked, but he said it was done in almost twenty years ago. Why remake this??? I hope not many are like this because origenality is more important than rehashing old Ideas.

Again tanks for your reply and I look forward to more.

War_Oberst

[War_Oberst]

mac5732 said:
Personally, I like the idea. There are many games out there and most of the reviews are in game magazines which I tend to be skeptical of in a number of occasssions, (example, I've seen raving reviews on some games that I've played, and which IMHO were lousy and yet the reviews praised how great they were. Yes I would like to see a review site that is objective and gives fair reviews. As far as starting a war with wargamer, I don't think thats what Shrapnel has in mind. There is always room for another review site, the problem is, getting people, lst to read it, 2nd to believe the reviews are fair and honest and not tied to special interests. You might want to add a write i section where fans can also comment on the games. That way you show your review and also comments from those who've played the game.

My 2 cents



I think this hard because there are many peopel who write reviews out there. Is it not their opinion that is posting? It is fair to assume that if a game come out and five hundred buy it. Then say fifty hate it awful and four hundred fifty love it. One of fifty that hate it is the reviewer and writes as such.

Balance of being a good objective writer is knowing you are not the only one who play it and if you hate it there may be peopel that love it. Or other way round. Say you hate the game but ask why can be done to make it better and good. Not telling peopel who make it why they are stupid. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

When you read opinion of gamer reviewer it is a measure of thier publisher who post reviews as to if they let such garbage out there or not or if they make writer temper it.

As for special interest it would be high prase for gamesite to be owned by publisher and make it have fair review ESPECALLY Of games that compettitors make.

[Tim Brooks]

As for special interest it would be high prase for gamesite to be owned by publisher and make it have fair review ESPECALLY Of games that compettitors make.



What is a competitor? As a niche game publisher, we compete with other niche games publishers for developers products. And that is all. Once a competitor has a game it is in the best interest of all publishers to have that game be a success. The more successes the greater the market.

This isn't automobiles we are selling here, where there will only be two or three to a household. Most gamers, those that account for almost 80% of games sold, buy many games. It is not a matter of I can buy x publisher's game or I can buy y publisher's game. If they like both games, they will buy both games.

So, being a publisher and being fair in reviews is not a problem that I really see. Our policy to reviewers is very simple:

1. Write the review to the products audience. (Don't reveiw a hardcore wargame as it applies to a casual gamer, because that is not the market the publisher is going after).

2. Give the pluses and minuses fairly. (Tell the audience what you like and don't like about the game).

3. Don't score it as this is subjective. (Reveiwer A may not have the same interpretation of scoring as reviewer B).

4. Treat every game equally, regardless of publisher.

[Gandalf Parker]

By description its supposed to be just about the indies. And I do tend to believe that is what is planned.

Of course a couple of things have to be fought to pull that off. One is that they need to get writers on board who can work on that goal. Another is that they need to find the indies (hence the pre-announcement and a call for contact by any indie developer/publishers). And finally, anyone involved in the project might have to consciously make an effort not to give hints about their own personal preferences.

"Shrapnel" is a great name for a publisher who has their eye on the marketing niche of indie developers doing strategy wargames. And they have done a great job of it. Im not sure if widening their publisher coverage would be good or not. I certainly wouldnt feel pressed to recommend it. So there is a slight dilemma in that we have Shrapnel who obviously loves and actively develops strategy wargames, backing the new magazine for covering all indie products.

They will have a rough go in the early days gathering material. And they will obviously have a wealth of information on their own games, their own developers, and some side surfing on the interest of their own genre. Yet they cant rely on that wealth of material without seeming to have created a biased magazine.

Anyone who believes in their sincerity and wants this project to succeed, feel free to pitch in. Even if its dropping little tidbits of names for your favorite indie developers. Better yet, pitch the mag to indie developers and have them contact the mag for inclusion.

[JDC]

Which indies have you contacted so far?

[Annette]

War_Oberst said:
What small companes do 'niche' games??? I have not heard of any except in game mags.

I will be honest again, I see HORSE and think it looks cool, but a freind say it is just MULE all over again. What is MuLE, I asked, but he said it was done in almost twenty years ago. Why remake this??? I hope not many are like this because origenality is more important than rehashing old Ideas.

War_Oberst



There are many, many companies out there developing and publishing niche games. And you've found the mission behind TheGamingNews: to bring attention to those games not usually covered in the major magazines. In the meantime, you may wish to visit the Independent Games Festival website (http://www.igf.com/) for more informatation about indie games.

No, not all indie games are remakes of older games. You may find it interesting to read A Note from the Designer (http://www.shrapnelgames.com/gilligames/Space_HoRSE/7.htm) in which Todd Gillessie specifically explains why he was inspired by M.U.L.E. to make Space HoRSE. And there's always our free downloadable demo (http://shrapnelgames.com/gilligames/Space_HoRSE/6.htm) so you may see if the game is right for you prior to making a purchase.


JDC said:
Which indies have you contacted so far?


I'm not the person heading up the process but my understanding is we're still collecting contact information from those who have responded to our press release. We have been very pleased with what we've heard so far. If you know of a developer or publisher who is interested but not yet been in touch with us, please ask them to send us their contact information using this form. (http://www.thegamingnews.com/staff.html)

[JDC]

Will do. Jeff Lapkoff and Naval Warfare Simulations come to mind.

[Annette]

Thanks, Jim. I've talked to Chris at NWS. I'm not sure about Jeff.

[Annette]

War_Oberst said:
I think this hard because there are many peopel who write reviews out there. Is it not their opinion that is posting? It is fair to assume that if a game come out and five hundred buy it. Then say fifty hate it awful and four hundred fifty love it. One of fifty that hate it is the reviewer and writes as such.

Balance of being a good objective writer is knowing you are not the only one who play it and if you hate it there may be peopel that love it. Or other way round. Say you hate the game but ask why can be done to make it better and good. Not telling peopel who make it why they are stupid. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

When you read opinion of gamer reviewer it is a measure of thier publisher who post reviews as to if they let such garbage out there or not or if they make writer temper it.

As for special interest it would be high prase for gamesite to be owned by publisher and make it have fair review ESPECALLY Of games that compettitors make.


I’m sure I’ll take some heat for this, but I’m going to play devil’s advocate. The quotes below are the documentation portion of two pc game reviews published on the same review website within a two week period. Both games would be considered wargames from independent publishers. Although written by different authors, one would assume the reviews were held to one editorial policy by one editorial staff. I’ve noted the reviews’ publication dates in relation to the games’ release dates but obviously cannot say when the review copies were made available. I feel safe assuming Game A was not sent seven months prior to release and that Game B was not sent seven months past release. I have removed the games’ titles and replaced them with Game A and Game B respectively.

Game A, reviewed same day as game’s release:


Installation, Documentation, and Tutorials[/i]

The game installed without fault and consumed approximately 520 MB of hard disk space.
The manual is large – approximately 120 pages - and comprehensive. It’s logically laid out and makes ample use of screenshots to help explain the game’s features. It covers initial set up; game controls; tutorials; and provides thorough explanations of the units – how they move, attack, are researched and produced – as well as how supply works and offers some sound strategic advice for each of the playable powers. Having a detailed manual helps enormously. Although Game A may look like an easy game to play, it actually requires more cerebral input than expected to play the game to its full potential.

The game ships with two tutorials, covering the principal components of a game turn: movement/attack and production/research.



Game B, reviewed 7 months after game’s release :

Nothing like a Wargame with a Big Manual to put the Fear of God into You

Game B is a mere 80MB install, and the game runs smooth as a polished wood panel; the area of difficulty for many may come in that the game operates its briefings through an internet browser, which can cause problems for those running tight firewalls not overly fond of OOB’s.

The manual is necessarily 130 pages and is crammed full of essential detail. Game B is a game which requires a very thorough read through unless one wishes to become completely and utterly lost from the first moment.



Now, if I told you that one of these games was published by the company which owned the review site, would you believe both reviews were written objectively and without bias?

[Dave Erickson]

Brilliantly stated!

[Tim Brooks]

Nothing like a Wargame with a Big Manual to put the Fear of God into You



I guess 120 pages is the 'just right' size, but 130 pages? Now that "puts the fear of God in you." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/eek.gif

[Jankee]

Do I get any brownie points for correctly guessing the two titles?

[Tim Brooks]

Jankee said:
Do I get any brownie points for correctly guessing the two titles?



Sure, let's hear 'em?

[Jankee]

A - War at World
B - Raging Tiger

[Annette]

Jankee said:
A - War at World
B - Raging Tiger


You've done your homework...Shall I send a t-shirt?:)

But really, I don't think the particular games matter for this discussion. The point I was trying to make is that review sites owned by game publishers should be very careful. I'll never know if the discrepency between saying a 120 page manual
helps enormously

and a 130 page manual will
put the Fear of God into You

was intentional. It's very possible it was not. Do I think it was intentional?

What this says to me is that entities where ownership may be perceived as being biased should exercise extreme caution by holding each review to a static list of criteria. We are very aware of this as we plan the launch of TGN and will expect our readers to hold us to our claims of objectivity. We don't claim that we will always be perfect; no one is. But we promise the relationship between the site and Shrapnel Games will be visible so that you, the reader, will be able to draw informed conclusions. We will expect to hear from you when we're not.

[Jim_Zabek]

Hi Annette,

I'm Jim Zabek, the Editor-in-Chief for The Wargamer.

You've got some excellent advice: you have to be very careful when you run a review site, though I wouldn't restrict that statement beyond that point. There seem to always be a few folks who can possibly misapprehend a review or statement made on the site. Perhaps I can help clarify a couple of things for you regarding your concern around review times and titles.

First, The Wargamer has never been known to have the fastest turnaround times on reviews. When a title is hot, we do try to get something out on it ASAP. In the case of Gary Grigsby’s World at War we had gold copy several weeks before the game was released commercially. In the case of Raging Tiger, we did not. Before I go further, I'd like to make a formal request: please send any exclusive screen shots, preview code, and review code to us as early as possible, especially for 82nd Airborne. There is a tremendous level of excitement around it and our readers and staff are really excited to see it. If you can get us Gold code three or four weeks before the game comes out I will do my best to get it reviewed before or coinciding with the game's commercial release.

As for timing, and since your concern centers around Matrix products, let me share a couple of examples. I don't keep a calendar as to when a game is commercially released and compare that to when we publish a review. However, I believe it's safe to say that Matrix Games' Starshatter was released sometime early last summer. A quick check of our site (where we do list the date our review was published) shows that review went up on...(drumroll please)

February 3, 2005.

Another "big" Matrix title, War in the Pacific, came out around the middle of last summer. We published its review on....

January 12, 2005.

There's no conspiracy on the part of The Wargamer to slight Shrapnel's games or cause Shrapnel any trouble, and I have to apologize to you if you received that impression. It's simply not true.

Something that is true, and you have rightly pointed that out, is that reviewers have opinions and those opinions can vary from person to person. Let’s talk about game manuals for a moment, since the subject is on many people’s minds:

I haven't seen the manual to Raging Tiger (we only received a single copy and it went to our reviewer) so I can't comment on it. I have seen the manual for Gary Grigsby's World at War and can say that it is lengthy but well written. Criticism of a manual usually isn't limited to its length but rather its quality and, more importantly, the need for it. A strong tutorial will help mitigate the need to flip through page after page of a paper manual. Without having seen Raging Tiger's manual, I can only speak in general terms: that care should be taken to make a manual as user friendly as possible, and ideally almost superfluous.

To illustrate a final point about manuals, perceptions, and game quality, let's take a look at Dominions II. I'll have to ask that you forgive my lack of savvy in quoting; this is my first post in the forums and I'm still learning the interface.

Let's take a look at what our reviewer (a third person who neither reviewed World at War nor Raging Tiger):

QUOTE
Documentation

This is one area that Dominions II could have been stronger. Don't get me wrong - the manual is well written, thorough, and has a complete listing of all the specialty items and spells available in the game. However, it does not go into enough depth to be truly satisfying. I would have appreciated an example of play or some tips about how to get started. By this I mean, what types of magic to specialize in depending on race, battle tactics and use of magic. To a certain extent, some of these shortcomings are addressed in the 'Tip of the Turn' that comes up between turns the orders of the previous turn are processed, especially when tactics are considered. Consequently, I found the learning curve to be steep and at times frustrating as I first delved into the game. A walk-through of the set-up and first few turns of a game is available on Shrapnel's website. I highly recommend it for any newbies.

/QUOTE

Care to guess what he thought of that title? Let's see what his conclusion was:

QUOTE
Summary

Dominions II is a great game. The more I played, the more I liked it not only because I am a strategy game fan, but also because of the challenge it presented. Rarely have I come across a game has made me work as hard as I did to improve my performance. Except for an improved diplomacy screen or at least a system to allow a player to see who they are and aren't at war with, I believe Dominions II has it all. This game won't be for everyone but if you like strategy games and can do without glitz and high tech graphics, Dominions II will be a great choice. I highly recommend it!

/QUOTE

Not only that, but Dominions II received our prestigious Award for Excellence. I think it’s safe to say that the game’s manual doesn’t reflect the overall quality of a game. It’s also safe to say that when we see a great game, we let the world know – irrespective of who the publisher is. It’s also safe to say that when we find a game we don’t like, we won’t hide that fact from our readers, either.

I can understand that some Shrapnel staffers may not have liked our review of Raging Tiger. However, The Wargamer's review isn't the only one on the net. I haven't seen any other reviews which refute it. That doesn't mean that some gamers won't like it - it's ideal for some, but not for others. That point was made in our review, though. And when Dr. Jim Cobb offered to take another look at it and I gladly accepted because I know he’ll be able to speak to the audience who might enjoy the game.

I can't control how my reviewers feel about the games they review. Forcing one to give a positive review to a title he doesn't like would be as bad as forcing one to write something negative about something they loved. I can't allow either.

What I can do is give you all the free press you can get if you send us developer diaries, screen shots, and previews. And when you publish another game as excellent as Dominions II, you'll hear our staff cheering for it, too.

Oh, and good luck launching your independent gaming news site. I look forward to reading it.

[Dave Erickson]

Although I DO believe that the timing of reviews does reveal a bias, I DON'T believe the divergent tones taken by these reviewers is due to a lack of objectivity. Rather it is due to what I have already described in the "Kicking the Retail Habit" thread. It is simply a matter of name recognition -- Gary Grigsby vs. some guy.

Not much you can do about it, I guess, except promote the heck out of your stuff and do what you can to get around this attitude -- start your own review site, find where these attitudes are prevalent and avoid them, find reviewers/consumers who aren't so enamored of mainstream stamps of approval and get them all together in an undiluted bunch, whatever.

But as far as Wargamer itself goes, aside from occasional weirdness (such as not mentioning "Prussia's Glory" in their new upcoming releases article and some other stuff I'd rather not go into), it is actually a lot MORE objective than they were under the previous management. A LOT MORE.

I think Annette laid out the problem indies face as well and as clearly as is possible. There IS a problem and I'm happy to see Shrapnel lay it out so clearly. I hope some kind of action will follow, for the sake of the hobby.

[Tim Brooks]

Hi Jim:

I am sure Annette will be along with her reply to your post, but I have a couple of questions / concerns from what you said.


First, The Wargamer has never been known to have the fastest turnaround times on reviews. When a title is hot, we do try to get something out on it ASAP.



How do you know a title is hot before it is released? I ask because Raging Tiger had a short pre-order period, yet was one of our top five pre-order successes. I would have considered that hot.


In the case of Gary Grigsby’s World at War we had gold copy several weeks before the game was released commercially. In the case of Raging Tiger, we did not.



So, if we had given you the review copy several weeks earlier it wouldn't have taken 7 months? Confused about how that works?

You seemd to have missed the point from what I can tell. I don't think a comparison with Dominions II is relevant, since this is about the heading of the Raging Tiger manual section in the review. We looked at several of the reviews of Wargames on your site and all the headings we saw said something like Installation, Documentation, and Tutorials or Documentation, etc. The only one that we found that headed the documentation section with a snide comment was Raging Tiger (Nothing like a Wargame with a Big Manual to put the Fear of God into You). This seems to be not so much the fault of the reviewer but the fault of the editors for allowing that kind of comment in a sub-heading. Care to comment?

Best regards,

[Jim_Zabek]

We don't know what titles are absolute winners, but I do know which titles my staff jumps for and which ones they don't.

There's no "way things work". Get me 82nd early, I'll ensure it's reviewed promptly.

Dominions II isn't missing the point for three reasons: one, Dominions II was the last Shrapnel game we reviewed prior to Raging Tiger; two, the review was made well after David Heath purchased The Wargamer; and three, it is a respectful reminder folks that Dominions II was given a Award well after David Heath acquired The Wargamer and Shrapnel's good efforts were recognized.

As for "snideness" of the subheader, well, it clearly it was an indication of what the reviewer thought of the documentation. Our writers have made other "witty" remarks about games as the author sees fit; it isn't restricted to the wargaming genre or a particular publisher. I'm sorry you took offense.

[Tim Brooks]

Jim:


We don't know what titles are absolute winners, but I do know which titles my staff jumps for and which ones they don't.



Well then, we just need to get some Shrapnel people on your staff.


Get me 82nd early, I'll ensure it's reviewed promptly.



Thanks, but no thanks.


As for "snideness" of the subheader, well, it clearly it was an indication of what the reviewer thought of the documentation. Our writers have made other "witty" remarks about games as the author sees fit; it isn't restricted to the wargaming genre or a particular publisher. I'm sorry you took offense.



If I had the time or inclination, I would go through the Matrix Games reviews on your site and see if this is true. However, I am pretty sure I already know the answer to this one. But do know that I don't think it is limited to just Shrapnel reviews.

And thank you for the Awards for both Dominions II and Dragoon!

Regards,

[Annette]

Hi, Jim,

I sincerely welcome you to our forums and am pleased that you have taken the time to voice your opinions, particularly on such an unpleasant topic which seems to be turning more unpleasant by the moment. Please allow me to openly address some of the points you’ve made.

I appreciate your invitation to send early review code for hot titles. Our policy is to ship review copies only after shipment of all pre-orders have been made.. We feel strongly about this commitment to our customers who have demonstrated faith in our games and made a purchase having never read a review.

I’m not sure I understand your conclusion that my comments here demonstrate a belief that all reviews published by The Wargamer are biased or there’s a “conspiracy” on the part of The Wargamer against Shrapnel Games. Surely if I were to make such claims for the general public to read, I would back them up with more documentation than excerpts from two game reviews. My intent was to demonstrate, as War_Oberst says, a review is ultimately the writer’s opinion. It is up to the editors to ensure the review is helpful to the reader. I think he has every right to expect a high set of standards from all sources of news and reviews and that sites such as The Wargamer and TGN should be held to even higher scrutiny as they both could easily be perceived as biased. I think The Wargamer’s editorial policy and peer review process fell apart on the Raging Tiger review.

I disagree with Tim on the relevance of your reference to Dominions II. I’d like to thank you for quoting the Documentation portion of that review. I believe it further illustrates my point. With all due respect, however, it was not the last of our titles reviewed by The Wargamer prior to Raging Tiger. Mario Kroll reviewed (http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/space_empires_starfury/) StarFury on Feb 19, 2004, and Jim Cobb reviewed (http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/dragoon/) Dragoon: The Prussian War Machine in December ’04 (which was also given The Wargamer Award for Excellence). In these three reviews (under general sub-headings such as “Documentation and Installation”), the reader is given an in-depth explanation of why the writer draws his overall conclusion of the documentation. This explanation is clearly lacking in the Raging Tiger review. You say yourself that “criticism of a manual usually isn’t limited to its length but rather its quality and, more importantly, the need for it.” In the Raging Tiger review, the writer admits the manual is “crammed full of essential detail” but later concludes the game,"...is incredibly detailed, yes, and the potential for play is vast, once the player gets past the flunky controls, poor graphics, and big manual.” I think your readers are left to wonder if the detail in the manual is essential, why is it something they must “get past”?

I’m not asking that you alter your writers’ opinions or only publish favorable reviews. I’m asking that you hold your writers’ to the standards The Wargamer has set for itself. Mr. McKenna quite clearly did not like the game. That’s okay. Cheap shots like saying in his footnote bio he needed new eye glasses after playing the game are not. In your most recent post you indicate that such comments are intended to be “witty.” It seems War_Oberst’s advise to me, “…a sense of humor like that may just make you seem less objectiv,” may be helpful to us both.

I’m sure I would be able to search The Wargamer site and find many, many examples of objectivity, balance and fairness. I’m sure I would also find other examples of bias. What I know I would not find is any disclosure that The Wargamer is owned by David Heath who also owns Matrix Games. Only long-time readers would understand the implication of the merger between MilitaryGamer and The Wargamer mentioned it's "Site History" section. For the rest of us, it’s pretty much a secret.

[Jim_Zabek]

Thanks for the feedback Annette. It's well taken and I'll do my best to ensure that any such witty comments are reigned in, especially with regard to Shrapnel's titles. Aaron's comments about a 100 page manual putting the fear of God into you were intended to be humorous: many wargamers have seen lengthy manuals before and often relish the thought. Clearly the humor was lost in the context of the negative review.

And I appreciate you correcting me on the other games we recently reviewed; we have indeed reviewed several other of Shrapnel's games. I would hope you will see the fact that those others didn't immediately spring to mind helps illustrate the point that we (and I in particular) don't mentally categorize our reviews by publisher in our heads. They are written at face value.

I can understand your policy regarding not releasing code early. Send us what you can when you can. And don't forget to keep sending the free stuff - I'd still love to publish an AAR for Raging Tiger, or any other title. Just because we write a review on something doesn't make that the final word. An AAR would let readers have an even better look at the gameplay involved and help them make their own minds up.

[JDC]

For the record, Matrix has never interfered with any Wargammer reviews and has strenuously taken a "Caesar's wife" approach. I have a problem with Aaron McKenna's work but that's two very different approaches to our hobby/industry and writing in general. I doubt that I'll agree with him on "Raging Tigers" but, who knows, Patrick may have slipped up. I will be as stringent with him as I am with anybody else.

Frankly, I find this thread unseeemly and counterproductive. I really don't think two of the best publishers/ sites should go after each other. I may started this with my post on McKenna's review but that was between two authors, not companies.

[Joe 98]

Tim Brooks said:



Get me 82nd early, I'll ensure it's reviewed promptly.




Thanks, but no thanks.






This will need to be reviewed by wargamers for wargamers. Not by “strategy” gamers and not by mainstream reviewers.


As for Raging Tiger, here is a screen shot for those wargamers who may have missed it.


<font color="blue">http://www.shrapnelgames.com/prosim/Raging_Tiger/Screen14.jpg</font>


-

[AMK]

Evening all,


Allow me to introduce myself - I'm the somewhat infamous Aaron McKenna, author of the Raging Tiger review which has been taking so much flak over here in the past days and weeks since its publication. I'm afraid I'm not a regular on Shrapnel's forums or website and so a lot of this may have gone over my head, and so I do apologise, as I do like to respond to criticism of my reviews.

Raging Tiger is an interesting case, as I think a few things have clashed - the deadly trio of Shrapnel, Matrix and Wargamer, the review of a game which is close to some of your hearts and my own sense of humour and style of writing. If I can I'll address these issues one by one, and do excuse me if I'm rather forthright on some of these.

On the issue of Wargamer being affected in its work by Matrix, well I can certainly say I've never encountered any systemic bias within The Wargamers editorial process, and consider it one of the "cleanest" places I've worked at during my career in journalism.

On Raging Tiger, as I stated in my review, I thought it was, to be frank, a terrible game with some minor appeals to the truly hardcore. Beyond that really inner circle it was a face only a mother could love (which is what I think the problem here may stem from :-). On the issue of the manual which has been gathering such criticism over the last while, it's not so much the size of the Raging Tiger manual that drew such attentions from me, but rather the fact that it was so poorly written - my apologies to the author of the manual, but I've read better by a stretch, and especially considering the complicated nature of the game (no bad thing in itself, when it's pulled off correctly), this is particularly inexcusable. The title of the section is more my own sense of humour at play (which you may notice through a lot of my reviews) highlighting the poor nature of the manual, albeit not in a precise fashion (the term of phrase being more for effect than description - read the review for the actual impressions, as they say ;-)

On the issue of "who" should review games, well, I think in this instance the folks here at Shrapnel are throwing a bit of a tantrum because of an opinion - back to the "face only a mother could love" idea. Whilst reviewers are always going to be biased to a degree, a good reviewer looks at a game from all angles, putting himself first in his own shoes, then in the position of the "masses", with the "masses" being a relative term to the game itself - for example "the masses" for a first person shooter are going to be different to the masses for a strategy game, or a niche game such as Raging Tiger. However, Raging Tiger was, from all views... well, terrible, and just because you may want to look past any imperfections to see the very rough diamond beneath... well, I just think this is lazy design and excuses.

The fact of the matter is, Raging Tiger is not a good game, and I'm far from the only reviewer to confirm this. I think the developers here need to get off their collective soapbox for a bit and instead look at making Raging Tigers successors better titles, rather than attempting to make cheap shots at the media who review your games when they do not give the impression that all developers want to see given of their games. I appreciate the toil that goes into many games, and that a lot of the time failure can be due to anything but lazy design, but the bottom line is this title is a poor one and no whinging can change that.

I'm sorry to have to lay it down this thick, but I think that Shrapnel is getting increasingly *****ey about who and what gets to review its games, damn well near expecting the developers to get to review the games as Mr. Brooks suggests above. Really, get a bloody grip.



Once again, sorry for the strong tones, but I'm sure we all appreciate frankness over hissy footing...



Aaron McKenna


(PS, On the bit of a writers rivalry myself and Dr. Cobb, well, I wouldn't miss that party for the world :-)

[Annette]

Welcome to our forums, Aaron, and thank you for letting us know what you think. As always, I am awestruck by the level of professionalism with which you write. I apologize for allowing the topic of this thread to become centered on your review of Raging Tiger. I hope if you read through the previous posts you will see that I simply used an excerpt from your review to illustrate a point in our discussion of whether or not review sites are able to remain free of bias regardless of their alliances.

Personally, I am not concerned with whether or not you liked Raging Tiger. We appreciate all reviews written with thoughtful evaluation and which ultimately help gamers determine if a particular game is right for them. My concern is with disparity of treatment which sometimes occurs and is often not apparent to readers. You see, I did “read the review for the actual impressions” but could only determine that the Raging Tiger manual’s page count was too high for your liking. This simply did not make sense to me when another game review posted within one week’s time gave high praise to a 120-page manual. Had your review revealed what you felt were shortcomings with the content of the manual, I am certain we would not be having this discussion today.

As much as I appreciate Dr. Cobb’s offer to take the fall for inspiring this thread, I think we started off on a sour note with “Beverly”’s choice of titles and initial post. And it was I who threw the switch, causing this trainwreck. The developers of Raging Tiger have not made a post in this thread, so if anyone needs to dismount a soapbox, it would be me. And if anyone is “*****y”, it also is me – just ask our staff.

I think if any of us would like to continue a discussion of Raging Tiger, including the positive reviews which have been published, I recommend we take it to the Raging Tiger portion of our forums. Otherwise, I hope we have demonstrated to “Beverly” that our announcement of TheGamingNews has nothing to do with The Wargamer. And I hope if there’s anyone else still reading, they have learned that writing game reviews is tricky business, indeed.

[Leslie]

Excellent read.

Not sure I will offer much of use to the conversation here. And I hope I am not regarded as sticking my nose in to much.

But I have a long history (well a handful of years isn't really long in some ways) of reading and contributing to Matrix Games as well as Wargamer.
Both have seen a lot of evolution in the last 5 years.

I am not concerned at this moment claiming it to be good or bad. Not the reason for my post.

I don't have much history with Shrapnel games, but that is not a limitation either.

I have a fairly good history though, with an additional separate forum entity. They don't make games, and to my knowledge they are wholely independent of any operation that does makes games.
And they have the added bonus of also owning a print publication that is most definitely wargamer friendly.

This reader is of the opinion also, that reviewers are human. And being on staff at a widely recognised web site, really is no real garantee of anything essentially speaking.
A person needs to be able to write competently, and that is about the size of it for a competent review.

Ideally the reviewer needs to have the game, the full game, a system built with the preferred specs, and enough time to play the game properly, several times through.

If a reviewer is truely unbiased, they don't really have to be a fan of the genre, but it helps. I for instance, would be a bad choice to review a sports title indeed. No aptitude whatsoever.

But back to the "other forum". I refer to Warfare HQ, which I think everyone here is familiar with.
Yes I am a big fan of theirs admittedly.
But the place is entirely independent to my knowledge.
They provide a great forum. They provide timely news. And I get just as much out of visiting there, as you could hope to give me at either Wargamer, or the site you have under construction.

Only downside I can see with Warfare HQ, is they are currently focused specifically on military titles.

Wargamer isn't quite so focused, but I am willing to put my hand up, and say, this person is willing to go on the record as saying, it's just not possible to just write off people as being incapable of wondering about owner bias.

I am pro Matrix Games, but I am still able to wonder all the same.
It's a curse that comes with it being public knowledge of who the owner is.

I have a private personal forum myself. A small little gathering place for a small handful of friends.
It would be illogical for me to expect anyone out there to think the site didn't suffer from at least some bias from me.

I can't see anyone truely and honestly extending a blank cheque to either Wargamer aka Matrix Games, or a site built by Shrapnel.

The only really important detail here, is Wargamer exists now, it's very well established, and it will be hard to make the Shrapnel equivalent anything but redundant.

You will have a very hard uphill climb getting any respectable traffic. Especially without all the accumulated indulgences that make up Wargamer.
They possess substantial linkages, enormous quantities of file downloads.
And that isn't built up over a small span of time.

I don't know why anything more than your forum here is reguired actually.
Wargamer to me, is a forum with a newspage/website wrapped around it.
Once people realise Shrapnel owns the site, they will just see it as an extension of here at any rate.

I hope I haven't muddied the waters with my thoughts on this.

[Combat Wombat]

So it is now summer does this mean we get a more specfic date on when the site will have its grand opening?

[Richard]

Probably closer to the end of summer, but the site is coming along.

[geodetic]

Interesting thread. As a reader of games reviews (with a little experience of writing them too) I've always felt that one of the most useful and trust-cultivating features a review site can offer is a prominent 'reviewer's track-record' section embedded in every review.

This section would contain info on and links to the previous 5? 10? reviews that writer had produced for the site. A hypothetical example:

I'm reading a review of Operation Bent Javelin on www.grogland.com. (http://www.grogland.com.) It's written by Ivor Chiponmyshoulder. One click away from this review is a list revealing that Ivor has written 13 reviews for Grogland of which the last 10 were:

Storm Over Suez (Detonation Software) 88%
Kursk '43 (Powder Monkey Games) 15%
Mailed Fist (Detonation Software) 95%
Viking Raiders (Powder Monkey Games) 23%
The Washing of the Spears (Hex House) 55%
Vimy Ridge (Hex House) 62%
Spitfire Summer (Inferno Interactive) 68%
The Battle of Omdurman (Detonation Software) 87%
Waterloo 3D (Inferno Interactive) 71%
Austerlitz 3D (Inferno Interactive) 73%

(In the event that scores aren't used then links would have to suffice)

Naturally I've played a few of the titles on this list and can compare Ivor's analysis with my own. In no time at all I can see whether Ivor is a reviewer I can trust and relate to.

Speculating about a site's bias or lack of it is ultimately pointless as nothing can ever be proved. At the end of the day the reviewer's (ergo, the site's) track-record tell you everything you need to know about their trustworthiness/competence.

[Annette]

geodetic said:
Interesting thread. As a reader of games reviews (with a little experience of writing them too) I've always felt that one of the most useful and trust-cultivating features a review site can offer is a prominent 'reviewer's track-record' section embedded in every review.

This section would contain info on and links to the previous 5? 10? reviews that writer had produced for the site. A hypothetical example:

I'm reading a review of Operation Bent Javelin on www.grogland.com. (http://www.grogland.com.) It's written by Ivor Chiponmyshoulder. One click away from this review is a list revealing that Ivor has written 13 reviews for Grogland of which the last 10 were:

Storm Over Suez (Detonation Software) 88%
Kursk '43 (Powder Monkey Games) 15%
Mailed Fist (Detonation Software) 95%
Viking Raiders (Powder Monkey Games) 23%
The Washing of the Spears (Hex House) 55%
Vimy Ridge (Hex House) 62%
Spitfire Summer (Inferno Interactive) 68%
The Battle of Omdurman (Detonation Software) 87%
Waterloo 3D (Inferno Interactive) 71%
Austerlitz 3D (Inferno Interactive) 73%

(In the event that scores aren't used then links would have to suffice)

Naturally I've played a few of the titles on this list and can compare Ivor's analysis with my own. In no time at all I can see whether Ivor is a reviewer I can trust and relate to.

Speculating about a site's bias or lack of it is ultimately pointless as nothing can ever be proved. At the end of the day the reviewer's (ergo, the site's) track-record tell you everything you need to know about their trustworthiness/competence.



I think this is a great suggestion and hope to see it incorporated into The Gaming News format. Thanks for your input.

[Curt Pangracs]

I've been scanning this thread for the first time, and only one thing comes to mind:

"We despise that which we don't understnd!" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

I would also like to point out that a review is, in fact, a personal opinion, especially when done by someone who has never created a game, or deeper still, has never created a game in the genre being reviewed! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

Opinions are, indeed, like, noses - everyone has one, some just "smell" better than others! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Have a great day, all!!