Adult Supervision
As I’ve said before, the gaming industry tends to eat its own. I’m talking about our gaming industry—conflict simulations, adventure games, etc. Much of the munching is done on the forums, such as Consimworld and BoardGameGeek.
![]()
Now let’s be clear about one thing. Forums are the ultimate blessing, and one hell of a beast. The lively posts provide free publicity, and a treasure chest of valuable design ideas. On the other hand, the posts--in fact both gaming sites-- are largely unmonitored. No doubt they are run by good people. I know John Kranz, the owner of Consimworld, and he is pure gamer. That’s a good thing. Neither is there a doubt that if something truly horrendous took place, such as an introduction of porn or a negative comment about President Obama, the post would be stricken from the Internet records.
What isn’t stricken, however, are the lame-tailed ratings and reviews posted on BoardGameGeek. Anyone can rate a game on The Geek (as us geeks like to call it) on a scale from 1 (worst) to 10 (best). That seems fair enough in theory, but in practice it leads to people who don’t even own games slapping a 1 on them in hopes of lowering the game’s ranking, which in turn might promote a product from their favorite publisher. The rub is as simple as it is irritating (rubs always are). Game industry distributors check the BoardGameGeek rankings, and they impact the size of the distributor’s order. The lower the ranking, the fewer games ordered.
Now, less this sound like sour apples, our fruit usually does quite well on The Geek. I have no problem with legitimate criticism. Nor do I brand “legitimate” only as criticism I agree with. I spent many years as an analyst in the computer and video game industry and dumped on my fair share of software. The difference is that my critiques were written for reputable publications, weighed, reviewed, and edited. In short they were subject to adult supervision. The reviews and rankings on The Geek aren’t.
Despite the 343-word introduction, this diatribe isn’t about forums. It’s about the industry-wide need for a review publication. One that provides fair and insightful critiques of games so readers (yes, and distributors) can fairly decide if the reviewed game is for them. Armchair General online might well be that publication. They recently reviewed two of our games, Flintlock and Heroes of the Blitzkrieg. The analysis was completely fair, not all positive, and certainly not how I feel about the games, but at least it was subject to adult supervision.
See you tomorrow.
Disclaimer: I write for the Armchair General print magazine, but I have no say whatsoever in what the online publication reviews or what they write.
Oh...it's Darryl Hall. He wrote Adult Education. Adult Education...adult supervison. There's a connection. Get it?
Now let’s be clear about one thing. Forums are the ultimate blessing, and one hell of a beast. The lively posts provide free publicity, and a treasure chest of valuable design ideas. On the other hand, the posts--in fact both gaming sites-- are largely unmonitored. No doubt they are run by good people. I know John Kranz, the owner of Consimworld, and he is pure gamer. That’s a good thing. Neither is there a doubt that if something truly horrendous took place, such as an introduction of porn or a negative comment about President Obama, the post would be stricken from the Internet records.
What isn’t stricken, however, are the lame-tailed ratings and reviews posted on BoardGameGeek. Anyone can rate a game on The Geek (as us geeks like to call it) on a scale from 1 (worst) to 10 (best). That seems fair enough in theory, but in practice it leads to people who don’t even own games slapping a 1 on them in hopes of lowering the game’s ranking, which in turn might promote a product from their favorite publisher. The rub is as simple as it is irritating (rubs always are). Game industry distributors check the BoardGameGeek rankings, and they impact the size of the distributor’s order. The lower the ranking, the fewer games ordered.
Now, less this sound like sour apples, our fruit usually does quite well on The Geek. I have no problem with legitimate criticism. Nor do I brand “legitimate” only as criticism I agree with. I spent many years as an analyst in the computer and video game industry and dumped on my fair share of software. The difference is that my critiques were written for reputable publications, weighed, reviewed, and edited. In short they were subject to adult supervision. The reviews and rankings on The Geek aren’t.
Despite the 343-word introduction, this diatribe isn’t about forums. It’s about the industry-wide need for a review publication. One that provides fair and insightful critiques of games so readers (yes, and distributors) can fairly decide if the reviewed game is for them. Armchair General online might well be that publication. They recently reviewed two of our games, Flintlock and Heroes of the Blitzkrieg. The analysis was completely fair, not all positive, and certainly not how I feel about the games, but at least it was subject to adult supervision.
See you tomorrow.
Disclaimer: I write for the Armchair General print magazine, but I have no say whatsoever in what the online publication reviews or what they write.
Oh...it's Darryl Hall. He wrote Adult Education. Adult Education...adult supervison. There's a connection. Get it?
Comments