PCGamer quick article SOTS2: Enhanced

All the blurbs from our main page, notices of updates, and other Kerberos items from around the web.
User avatar
Adamfostas
Posts: 726
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:38 am

Re: PCGamer quick article SOTS2: Enhanced

Post by Adamfostas » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:35 pm

ZedF wrote:Should the reviewer mention the lack of tutorial, and that it caused him problems? Sure. But that shouldn't be the entire basis for his review. Reading the manual and spending enough time with the game to get an idea of how it's supposed to work and why it's supposed got work that way are pretty fundamental prerequisites for a good review. Either the reviewer or the review site (or both) didn't care enough to do a proper job, and it shows.

It's a re-review of a game that was a mess at launch. Quite frankly, we're lucky it happens at all. Journalists don't owe Kerberos anything; in order to get them to take the game seriously they'd need to put in some serious PR.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2

User avatar
The Magus
Doomsayer
Posts: 2115
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:49 pm

Re: PCGamer quick article SOTS2: Enhanced

Post by The Magus » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:47 pm

Journalists don't owe developers, they owe their field and their audience an actual semblance of integrity. The "serious PR" I imagine would be over a year of an insane amount of dedication, but no game journalist wants to talk about that.
The teacher cut in smoothly, "Yes, of course. SolForce never fails to remind us how necessary they are to our...'survival'. ... It amazes me that the human race ever managed to exist, before you lot came along."

Cai Rui smiled thinly. "What amazes me is how quickly the human race could cease to exist, if we were gone."

--The Deacon's Tale

User avatar
Goomich
Posts: 792
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 1:17 pm

PCGamer quick article SOTS2: Enhanced

Post by Goomich » Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:04 pm

Sure, they don't have anything better to do, than report about new patches to every game ever reviewed and how it affect their original opinion.

DemoMonkey
Posts: 590
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 2:31 am

Re: PCGamer quick article SOTS2: Enhanced

Post by DemoMonkey » Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:08 pm

SOTS 2 cannot be properly and fairly reviewed without at least 20 hours of research and play. That is probably too high an investment of time for a reviewer; so you are left with the choice of a shallow review, or no review.

That's unfortunate, but there's nothing to be done about it.

User avatar
Adamfostas
Posts: 726
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:38 am

Re: PCGamer quick article SOTS2: Enhanced

Post by Adamfostas » Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:21 pm

The Magus wrote:Journalists don't owe developers, they owe their field and their audience an actual semblance of integrity. The "serious PR" I imagine would be over a year of an insane amount of dedication, but no game journalist wants to talk about that.

I submit that claiming that a gaming journalist has sacrificed his integrity for not putting in dozens of hours for a re-review of a game involves a certain amount of hyperbole. You're also presuming that they're even aware of the amount of effort Kerberos put in; without being an avid fan of these forums, it's not clear that they would know.

'Serious' PR isn't complicated but does involve a significant amount of effort. I used to work in corporate comms, so this is what I'd have done:

- Develop a narrative arc over the course of the year the game spent in post-launch development, detailing how they reached the point they did when they launched the EE.
- Organise a roundtable/webinar for a few select game journalists to walk them through the narrative and - importantly - showing them how the game works.
- Send them away with a copy and call them up to talk them through any problems they're having with the game.

This may seem to overly favour the journalists, but quite frankly Kerberos are competing for favour with the big boys and can't afford to have less than a PR A-game.

User avatar
The Magus
Doomsayer
Posts: 2115
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:49 pm

Re: PCGamer quick article SOTS2: Enhanced

Post by The Magus » Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:03 pm

Goomich wrote:Sure, they don't have anything better to do, than report about new patches to every game ever reviewed and how it affect their original opinion.


Yeah, that would be absolutely ridiculous. If only an opportunity would come up, a really good chance where it wouldn't be out of their way to make mention of this and also be highly relevant to an article they're trying to give to consumers. OH WAIT. (yes, I know the tone of this. It rightly mirrors yours)

Adamfostas wrote:I submit that claiming that a gaming journalist has sacrificed his integrity for not putting in dozens of hours for a re-review of a game involves a certain amount of hyperbole. You're also presuming that they're even aware of the amount of effort Kerberos put in; without being an avid fan of these forums, it's not clear that they would know.


I submit that if you're being paid to give information to a general public than perhaps a certain amount of homework, if at least effort, should be involved or you're doing a disservice to pretty much everyone. That involves integrity. How does every single one of your responses miss the forest for the trees? They didn't put effort into it. It is painfully obvious. There's nothing to respect there. How much time reviewers should put into a game to give a review is an argument as old as game journalism, but regardless of how much they invest an honest review relies upon acknowledgement of this fact and its incorporation.
The teacher cut in smoothly, "Yes, of course. SolForce never fails to remind us how necessary they are to our...'survival'. ... It amazes me that the human race ever managed to exist, before you lot came along."

Cai Rui smiled thinly. "What amazes me is how quickly the human race could cease to exist, if we were gone."

--The Deacon's Tale

User avatar
Nall White
Posts: 1305
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 2:10 am

Re: PCGamer quick article SOTS2: Enhanced

Post by Nall White » Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:07 pm

The Magus wrote:
Goomich wrote:Sure, they don't have anything better to do, than report about new patches to every game ever reviewed and how it affect their original opinion.


Yeah, that would be absolutely ridiculous. If only an opportunity would come up, a really good chance where it wouldn't be out of their way to make mention of this and also be highly relevant to an article they're trying to give to consumers. OH WAIT. (yes, I know the tone of this. It rightly mirrors yours)

Adamfostas wrote:I submit that claiming that a gaming journalist has sacrificed his integrity for not putting in dozens of hours for a re-review of a game involves a certain amount of hyperbole. You're also presuming that they're even aware of the amount of effort Kerberos put in; without being an avid fan of these forums, it's not clear that they would know.


I submit that if you're being paid to give information to a general public than perhaps a certain amount of homework, if at least effort, should be involved or you're doing a disservice to pretty much everyone. That involves integrity. How does every single one of your responses miss the forest for the trees? They didn't put effort into it. It is painfully obvious. There's nothing to respect there. How much time reviewers should put into a game to give a review is an argument as old as game journalism, but regardless of how much they invest an honest review relies upon acknowledgement of this fact and its incorporation.

+1 A co-worker tells a story of his brother at PAX. When the crown was asked what does IGN stand for, he got up and yelled "PAID REVIEWS!". And, was escorted out.
I'm NOT a cat!

User avatar
Nspace
Kerbicron Cleric
Kerbicron Cleric
Posts: 4668
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: PCGamer quick article SOTS2: Enhanced

Post by Nspace » Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:08 pm

Adamfostas wrote:Serious' PR isn't complicated but does involve a significant amount of effort. I used to work in corporate comms, so this is what I'd have done:

- Develop a narrative arc over the course of the year the game spent in post-launch development, detailing how they reached the point they did when they launched the EE.
- Organise a roundtable/webinar for a few select game journalists to walk them through the narrative and - importantly - showing them how the game works.
- Send them away with a copy and call them up to talk them through any problems they're having with the game.

This may seem to overly favour the journalists, but quite frankly Kerberos are competing for favour with the big boys and can't afford to have less than a PR A-game.

None of what you listed is Kerberos' to do. All of that falls on the publisher of SotS 2, Paradox. All Kerberos can do is keep working on the game and be ready if or when Paradox decides they want to do a PR push.

Oh and I agree that PCGamer should not be doing a rereview. What PCGamer should be doing is a proper review of the new expansion, where spending dozens of hours to play through the new expansion should be expected.
"Quando omni flunkus, mortati" - "When all else fails, play dead"
SotS 1 wiki: http://wiki.swordofthestars.com/sots1/Main_Page
SotS 2 wiki: http://wiki.swordofthestars.com/sots2/SotS2_Codex

User avatar
Adamfostas
Posts: 726
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:38 am

Re: PCGamer quick article SOTS2: Enhanced

Post by Adamfostas » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:10 pm

The Magus wrote:I submit that if you're being paid to give information to a general public than perhaps a certain amount of homework, if at least effort, should be involved or you're doing a disservice to pretty much everyone. That involves integrity. How does every single one of your responses miss the forest for the trees? They didn't put effort into it. It is painfully obvious. There's nothing to respect there. How much time reviewers should put into a game to give a review is an argument as old as game journalism, but regardless of how much they invest an honest review relies upon acknowledgement of this fact and its incorporation.


The PC Gamer Review wrote:It sorely lacks a comprehensive, playable tutorial, and the UI is difficult blah blah bash bash blah


All these things would remain true even if the reviewer spent more time with the game. Quite frankly, you're demanding that a reviewer overlook the game's shortcomings in order to develop a more positive view of it. This is special pleading for a game you like. The reality is that many elements of SOTS2 are very different and require additional effort to get into. I have, and I enjoy it. That doesn't mean I can demand that other people do the same, and a reviewer giving an impression bought of 10-20 hours of playtime (we don't know how much time he spent playing, I must point out) has given an impression he believes to be honest. Demanding that he research into the game's history and development - which no reviewer does for any other game - is just silly.

@chap talking about responsibilities for PR: if my commercial success was dependent on a well-received relaunch, I wouldn't leave it to a third party.

User avatar
Erinys
Kerberos Goddess of Lore
Posts: 7461
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:58 am

Re: PCGamer quick article SOTS2: Enhanced

Post by Erinys » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:32 pm

Adamfostas wrote:Journalists don't owe Kerberos anything; in order to get them to take the game seriously they'd need to put in some serious PR.

Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk 2


This is a true statement. The majority of game publishers spend an enormous amount of money per year to force the issue, and get their products various kinds of coverage. Games which are not backed by a hefty PR budget will always be either ignored or attacked whenever possible.

The Magus wrote:Journalists don't owe developers, they owe their field and their audience an actual semblance of integrity.


When the audience stops paying for content, they lose the ability to demand integrity. The salaries and expenses of all gaming news sites, blogs and broadcasts are paid by advertisers. And in the gaming industry at present, the advertisers are the publishers.

There is only so hard that anyone can bite the hand that feeds them.

The majority of the audience for gaming journalism does not notice or care who foots the bill for their reviews, previews and interviews. They only care that they get plenty of content, and they get it for free.

There are many problems with the current system. I think the most disturbing thing about modern gaming journalism, though, is that it depends entirely on the economic health of publishers, in an industry where publishers are increasingly troubled economically.

I find it hard to believe that so many journalists in this industry are so completely blind to the writing on the wall. Even very big third party developers for the PC are breaking free of the old system whenever they can. Even very big publishers are failing. How much longer can the current business model last?

Personally, I am very surprised that more journalists do not reach out to developers like Kerberos, who are breaking free of the old system. In the future, independent developers will increasingly be in charge of their own PR and advertising budgets. Doesn't really take a genius to do the math.

--Arinn
Support my independent fiction campaign on Patreon.
_______________________________________________
Twitter
Sword of the Stars Gallery on Facebook
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” --Hemingway

User avatar
The Magus
Doomsayer
Posts: 2115
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:49 pm

Re: PCGamer quick article SOTS2: Enhanced

Post by The Magus » Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:02 pm

Adamfostas wrote:
All these things would remain true even if the reviewer spent more time with the game. Quite frankly, you're demanding that a reviewer overlook the game's shortcomings in order to develop a more positive view of it.


Hardly, and yet again you're putting words where they aren't. I mentioned there are faults worth discussing, things an honest review should look at it, so what's silly is trying to suggest I want them to whitewash over problems. The very fact so many can find enjoyment should indicate there's something positive worth discussing. The article in question does not make the attempt to discuss anything beyond pet peeves they had. I don't care how long they spend with it, it's silly to try and pass that off as an informative, helpful, or even professional review. It's silly to try and implicate that a reviewer shouldn't know about what they're supposed to be writing about, or to assume that suggesting they do is the equivalent of some academic paper, and it's silly to state, by the way, that reviewers don't do any research into games they review. They certainly do and I've seen it multiple times where they at least have an understanding of what's behind a game, especially, if not interestingly, the more untouchable or bigger the name behind the game is. What's made pretty obvious is that this reviewer felt safe not trying to find something worth explaining or talking about, so they didn't try. First impression, what irked them, a few slapdash three sentence paragraphs, done.
The teacher cut in smoothly, "Yes, of course. SolForce never fails to remind us how necessary they are to our...'survival'. ... It amazes me that the human race ever managed to exist, before you lot came along."

Cai Rui smiled thinly. "What amazes me is how quickly the human race could cease to exist, if we were gone."

--The Deacon's Tale

User avatar
Adamfostas
Posts: 726
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:38 am

Re: PCGamer quick article SOTS2: Enhanced

Post by Adamfostas » Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:13 pm

The Magus wrote:Hardly, and yet again you're putting words where they aren't. I mentioned there are faults worth discussing, things an honest review should look at it, so what's silly is trying to suggest I want them to whitewash over problems. The very fact so many can find enjoyment should indicate there's something positive worth discussing. The article in question does not make the attempt to discuss anything beyond pet peeves they had. I don't care how long they spend with it, it's silly to try and pass that off as an informative, helpful, or even professional review. It's silly to try and implicate that a reviewer shouldn't know about what they're supposed to be writing about, or to assume that suggesting they do is the equivalent of some academic paper, and it's silly to state, by the way, that reviewers don't do any research into games they review. They certainly do and I've seen it multiple times where they at least have an understanding of what's behind a game, especially, if not interestingly, the more untouchable or bigger the name behind the game is. What's made pretty obvious is that this reviewer felt safe not trying to find something worth explaining or talking about, so they didn't try. First impression, what irked them, a few slapdash three sentence paragraphs, done.

You're rather overstating your position. Describing the mission system and UI issues as 'pet peeves' ignores the countless threads on this forum about both topics. Ignoring them would be doing a disservice to readers. However, given that you've chosen to 'put words where they aren't' by claiming that I said 'reviewers don't do any research into games they review', I'm going to have to ask you to show your hand. Are there any negative SOTS 2 reviews of which you approve?

User avatar
Ashbery76
Posts: 598
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:47 pm

Re: PCGamer quick article SOTS2: Enhanced

Post by Ashbery76 » Wed Jan 02, 2013 7:55 pm

Tool tips on every facet and a basic tutorial are a given in 2013.If you play the Civs,totalwars and even Victoria2 you find tool tips are everywhere.

User avatar
The Magus
Doomsayer
Posts: 2115
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:49 pm

Re: PCGamer quick article SOTS2: Enhanced

Post by The Magus » Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:37 pm

Adamfostas wrote:However, given that you've chosen to 'put words where they aren't' by claiming that I said 'reviewers don't do any research into games they review'


Ahem.

Demanding that he research into the game's history and development - which no reviewer does for any other game - is just silly.


You make a false claim that I want favoritism shown towards a game I like. It's insulting, and you know it is, and its a willful misconstruing of my complaints, and you continue to do so with every response.

Describing the mission system and UI issues as 'pet peeves' ignores the countless threads on this forum about both topics. Ignoring them would be doing a disservice to readers.


This is an attempt at a straw man with an argument you yourself made. Did I say everything the reviewer mentioned was invalid? Does him saying anything valid somehow disprove any and all claims of laziness due to perceived lack of consequence? And, as I must repeat again and for the last time, did I ever say negative traits shouldn't be talked about, as you repeatedly imply? You don't get to complain or be flippant about putting words in others mouths after that masterpiece of things I've never said being your argument against mine.
The teacher cut in smoothly, "Yes, of course. SolForce never fails to remind us how necessary they are to our...'survival'. ... It amazes me that the human race ever managed to exist, before you lot came along."

Cai Rui smiled thinly. "What amazes me is how quickly the human race could cease to exist, if we were gone."

--The Deacon's Tale

User avatar
Mecron
Kerberos
Posts: 38677
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 7:26 pm

Re: PCGamer quick article SOTS2: Enhanced

Post by Mecron » Wed Jan 02, 2013 9:07 pm

lets calm down a bit more folks...sadly there was really nothing much to see here but someone wanting to be a biscuit or a yahtzee when they grow up, cause really, these days, reviewing has become more about getting famous as a reviewer and cashing in than it is about the game. Peel away most of the nouns and that's pretty much what the arguments here are boiling down to. "Is this valid form or review or not?" And it's probably less anger inducing to think of it in those terms as opposed to the current vibe in this topic which is "someone is being fair/unfair to something you like/dislike."

Most of you old timers here kinda internet know each other by now so keep that in mind. Try not to tear each other up too much debating how often the broken clock is right...cause ya know...its gonna be right a couple times no matter how you personally feel about it. ;)

Post Reply

Return to “Kerberos News & Information”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest