|
|
|
 |
|

March 7th, 2005, 10:01 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cary, NC, USA
Posts: 1,319
Thanks: 22
Thanked 51 Times in 38 Posts
|
|
Re: Shrapnel to Take on Wargamer.com?
Quote:
Beverley said:
Quote:
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?"
|

March 7th, 2005, 10:15 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Minnesota/South Dakota
Posts: 1,439
Thanks: 3
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
|
Re: Shrapnel to Take on Wargamer.com?
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.
__________________
You can give a man fire and he will be warm for a day but set him on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
A* Se+++ GdQ $? Fr! C* Css Sf-- Ai% Au M+++ Mp* S@ Ss++++ RNSHP Pw++ Fq+++ Nd++ Rp++ G++++ Mm++ Bb+++@ L+ Tcp--
Get the newest Version of Invasion! here: http://www.secenter.org/

|

March 7th, 2005, 10:26 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Lancaster, OH, USA
Posts: 1,250
Thanks: 28
Thanked 74 Times in 49 Posts
|
|
Re: Shrapnel to Take on Wargamer.com?
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.
__________________
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
For those looking for  with this forum, please see Annette as I am retired.
|

March 7th, 2005, 10:28 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Minnesota/South Dakota
Posts: 1,439
Thanks: 3
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
|
|
Re: Shrapnel to Take on Wargamer.com?
Alright that makes sense thank you.
__________________
You can give a man fire and he will be warm for a day but set him on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
A* Se+++ GdQ $? Fr! C* Css Sf-- Ai% Au M+++ Mp* S@ Ss++++ RNSHP Pw++ Fq+++ Nd++ Rp++ G++++ Mm++ Bb+++@ L+ Tcp--
Get the newest Version of Invasion! here: http://www.secenter.org/

|

March 7th, 2005, 11:47 PM
|
 |
Brigadier General
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 1,951
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Shrapnel to Take on Wargamer.com?
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
__________________
just some ideas Mac
BEWARE; crochety old geezers play SE4, in between bathroom runs
Phong's Head Parking
|

March 8th, 2005, 12:18 AM
|
 |
First Lieutenant
|
|
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Gettysburg Sector
Posts: 785
Thanks: 7
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
|
|
Re: Shrapnel to Take on Wargamer.com?
Good to know it's a placeholder, can't wait to see the real deal.
|

March 17th, 2005, 11:33 AM
|
 |
Major
|
|
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Wilmington, NC, USA
Posts: 1,085
Thanks: 28
Thanked 264 Times in 85 Posts
|
|
Re: Shrapnel to Take on Wargamer.com?
Quote:
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
Still only a prototype, but comments are welcome!
__________________
Tim Brooks
Shrapnel Games
|

March 29th, 2005, 11:43 PM
|
Private
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Houston
Posts: 4
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Shrapnel to Take on Wargamer.com?
Quote:
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.
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.
|

March 30th, 2005, 08:43 AM
|
 |
Major
|
|
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Wilmington, NC, USA
Posts: 1,085
Thanks: 28
Thanked 264 Times in 85 Posts
|
|
Re: Shrapnel to Take on Wargamer.com?
Quote:
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.
__________________
Tim Brooks
Shrapnel Games
|

April 1st, 2005, 04:06 PM
|
 |
Lieutenant Colonel
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cary, NC, USA
Posts: 1,319
Thanks: 22
Thanked 51 Times in 38 Posts
|
|
Re: Shrapnel to Take on Wargamer.com?
Quote:
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. 
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:
Quote:
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 :
Quote:
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?
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Hybrid Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|