Can reviewers lose their cred? [Archive]

Jessica

08-01-2002, 12:11 PM

There was more than one instance of publishers getting on CGW because of a Scorpia review. The general feeling among publishers from about 1989 until she was dropped from the CGW list of writers in the mid-90s (whether true ot not) was that she hadn't met an RPG she liked since Ultima 4, thus blasting pretty much everything non-OSI that came down the road.

I do know that Interplay, when I was there in 1994, objected to the CGW editorial staff about the treatment of their games by Scorpia. I don't really recall what came of it, if anything.

She ran her own web site from 1997-2000 (http://www.scorpia.com/public/default.htm), then kind of slid all the way into obscurity when she didn't get enough paid subscriptions to make it work.

And yes, I know her name and have even met her (I was in charge of GEnie games products for several years when she was the Games RT sysop). However, she prefers anonymity for her real name, so I don't feel right about revealing it here or anywhere else.

Jim F.

08-01-2002, 12:15 PM

Reviewers can lose credibility with me personally. If I disagree with enough of the reviews from an individual reviewer, I just stop listening to what they think.

For me, I tend to read every review with a grain of salt. So many questions aren't answered in most reviews; how long did the reviewer play it? Does the reviewer enjoy this genre? What type of PC was the game played on (this pertains mainly to "subpar graphics" comments)? Does the reviewer have a beef against the publisher? Did the reviewer get some bonus stuff that colored the review more favorably?

etc...

Bub, Andrew

08-01-2002, 12:18 PM

I contacted her and used her input/opinion for my massive RPG overview at Gamespy a couple months ago (along with PCG's former RPG guy Mike Wolf, Jeff Vogel, Todd Howard, a couple other devs, and some guy named Desslock). I actually wanted her input for her breadth of coverage and her controversial opinions. She was very gracious.

Samuel Bass

08-01-2002, 12:24 PM

I remember being almost banished from the online console-RPG community for daring to state (in my Daily Radar review) that Chrono Cross was a good, but not great game, and nowhere near as good as its predecessor. What hate mail I saw...

Thankfully, my editor backed me up and in time the hatemail eventually faded. In fact, by the time my glowing review of Final Fantasy IX came out, it was as if the incident had never happened.

In the end, I think that, while some reviewers do indeed have a axe to grind, most are just trying to given an honest appraisal of their assigned game. The anger, backlash and general resentment tends to stem from those who look to reviews not as a purchase guide, but as a means of validating a purchase they've already made. It's a shame, but what can ya' do about it...

Desslock

08-01-2002, 01:02 PM

> do know that Interplay, when I was there in 1994, objected to the CGW editorial staff about the treatment of their games by Scorpia. I don't really recall what came of it, if anything.

I was asked to replace Scorpia because the editors at CGW at the time had lost faith in her ability to do her job well. Scorpia was great - in the 1980s - but she became so jaded and cynicial with gaming, it was really time for her to go when she did, even if she needed to be pushed along. Her later reviews would have been interesting angry editorial pieces, but she really wasn't interested in fairly assessing games anymore.

Derek Smart [3000AD]

08-01-2002, 01:29 PM

Scorpia lost sight of ALL semblance of objectivity when she met Ultima4

Yes. I know who she is

No. I ain't telling either

Yes. I too had a GEnie account at the time (damn, that was a long time ago). She was just as bad as Nightie (you oldies remember her?) over on CIS.

/nostalgia settles in

CIS, GEnie, BIX, CIX, The Well, AOHell....look where we are now. Now ever two-bit idiot with access to a phone line and computer, can get on the Net. :P

/whack!!! Wake up and take a look at that compiler output window you lazy bastard!!

Anonymous

08-01-2002, 01:32 PM

but she became so jaded and cynicial with gaming, it was really time for her to go when she did, even if she needed to be pushed along. Her later reviews would have been interesting angry editorial pieces, but she really wasn't interested in fairly assessing games anymore.
Now we know who Erik really is.

runesword forger

08-01-2002, 02:21 PM

Haven't thought about Scorpia in a while, though she actually DID like Bronze Dragon, so I can't question her taste.... In her early days, though, she actually leveled some valid criticisms at adventures and RPG's. I mean, back then, a lot of the computer specific magazines didn't run any negative reviews whatsoever.

She did kind of freak out on Ultima IV. Nice game, but I never could understand why reviewers went nuts over the avatar virtue thing, and the game engine was very similar to Ultima III. There were a lot of really stupid pretentious things said about Ultima IV.

You know, Scorpia and Jerry Pournelle of Byte had an amazing amount of influence back in the day. Seemed like all gamers read Scorpia. Software vendors used to put in custom mods to suit Jerry's word processing quirks. His pet vendors got huge increases in sales when he mentioned them.

Mark Asher

08-01-2002, 02:38 PM

Pournelle used to discuss games in his column too. I wonder if he helped sell those, too.

Sean Tudor

08-01-2002, 02:57 PM

Gordon Berg

08-01-2002, 03:53 PM

Pournelle used to discuss games in his column too. I wonder if he helped sell those, too.

Pournelle...what a fucking asshole. I hated it whenever he butted in on interesting GEnie gaming threads.

I miss GEnie (nostagically speaking, that is...um, is nostagically a word?). I was really depressed the day I cancelled my account.

Derek Smart [3000AD]

08-01-2002, 04:18 PM

]CIS, GEnie, BIX, CIX, The Well, AOHell....look where we are now. Now ever two-bit idiot with access to a phone line and computer, can get on the Net. :P

For me the golden era of online communities were the gamer forums on CompuServe. That and the 1993 - 1996 era of usenet. Now I have to rely on quality forums like Quarter To Three.

Usenet is a cesspit these days. Look at all those morons still chasing after Derek in csipc.space-sim. I can't believe all those idiots are still responding. How many years has this been going on ?! There are some truly sad individuals out there.

*sigh*

I know what you mean Sean. Just being online back in the day, was fun in itself. I remember when I announced on CIS that I was actually going to start developing a game because I was tired of playing games that didn't do what I wanted. Man, I can still hear the laughing. I think Nightie banned a few people (for a short while) over that rukus. One of them looked just like your Sean! :P

Man, those were the days.

heh, I remembered the first time CIS actually wrapped a GUI around CIS. Oh boy, what a ruckus that was!!! Do you remember that one?

Genie, ah yes, Genie. My first board actually (or maybe it was BIX when I was back in the UK. Can't remember now), with the Blue background and White text. Delphi had the same type of layout as well, except for a few different menu options.

Back in the day, I was an online junkie, having accounts at every major Net forum there was. I used to take one look at my monthly bill and wrote off a month worth of groceries. :D

As for the Usenet idiots, they can keep playing with themselves. Its old and the rubbish never changes. It has been going on since BC3K was released in 1996. Nothing's changed, except (a) I don't bother anymore (b) the fools have grown older (c) they still have zero impact on my efforts - as such, their efforts are, well, quite simply, in vain.

Qenan

08-01-2002, 04:48 PM

]CIS, GEnie, BIX, CIX, The Well, AOHell....look where we are now. Now ever two-bit idiot with access to a phone line and computer, can get on the Net. :P

For me the golden era of online communities were the gamer forums on CompuServe. That and the 1993 - 1996 era of usenet. Now I have to rely on quality forums like Quarter To Three.

Usenet is a cesspit these days. Look at all those morons still chasing after Derek in csipc.space-sim. I can't believe all those idiots are still responding. How many years has this been going on ?! There are some truly sad individuals out there.

Wow, ancient history. I started on GEnie in 1990; mostly hung out on the SFRT, though. I was really sorry to see the SFRT decline when "Star Services" went away.

I miss Scorpia. The games companies might not have liked her, and she might not have been fair, but I enjoyed her savagery. This is one of the things that pushed me away from reading game magazines -- it felt like there was constant fluff and sucking up to game companies. I know you guys say you don't do that, and I'm sure you don't (at least consciously), but that's how it felt after a while. (I remember Ascendancy getting a high rating -- ouch. That was my first big step toward cynicism about the gaming review business.) There is a need for reviewers who write to please cranky gamers more than game companies...

But Scorpia had exaggerated notions of how much her work was worth (probably created in the easy years in the late 1980s - early 1990s, when CGW and her roundtable at GEnie brought in easy money). Just disappearing when folks wouldn't pay has probably made a comeback impossible; at this point, she's a nobody to younger gamers.

Qenan

08-01-2002, 04:54 PM

I used to use Usenet a lot, but the combination of spam and too many posters is killing it. For a community to develop, there needs to be enough activity to generate constant interest, but not so much that you can't keep up at all. It also helps to have a few brilliant and talented writers -- e.g., here we have Mark, Tom et al. On the SFRT on GEnie they had Damon Knight, Judith Tarr, and plenty of other professional writers.

I still read the Usenet gaming newsgroups intermittantly, but there are so many conversations (especially by idiots who flout all newsgroup conventions and rename existing threads) that it is becoming less and less attractive. And yet, I remember reading many a wonderful post on alt.games.everquest in the early days...

But I think web-boards are going to provide better communities than usenet. (Unfortunately for me, since I like newsreaders much better than browsers...)

Gordon Cameron

08-01-2002, 06:40 PM

I miss Scorpia. The last review I remember by her was Baldur's Gate around March '99. She wasn't too impressed, but she gave it 3 1/2 stars IIRC -- claiming the multiplayer was the best thing about it. (!) She also said the combat dice-rolls were screwy.

She did kind of freak out on Ultima IV. Nice game, but I never could understand why reviewers went nuts over the avatar virtue thing, and the game engine was very similar to Ultima III. There were a lot of really stupid pretentious things said about Ultima IV.

There were a couple of big innovations over Ultima III. First, the gameworld was friggin' HUGE in comparison to Ultima III. This was an enormous difference as far as I was concerned, and really made me feel as if the scope of the series had opened up. (I think Questron had a landmass of comparable size, but its towns didn't have anywhere near the personality or distinctiveness, and the world felt rather barren.) It was also the first game to begin a really serious attempt at a coherent history and geography for the series. And the conversation parser and reagent-magic-system were two other big additions. It wasn't revolutionary, but it most definitely was evolutionary, and in several non-trivial ways. It still feels to me like the "apotheosis" of that generation of Ultima engine, both graphically (graphics were much more polished than U3, although I preferred U3's brown mountains in the C64 version) and in terms of elegance. (Ultima V's engine was far more sophisticated, but it seemed to be bursting at the seams a little bit too -- waiting for the graphical upgrade of Ultima VI.)

As for the ethical thing, it might be overrated. It doesn't really translate *that* heavily into gameplay -- you still have to wade through hordes of monsters in order to win the thing, which is the same as every other RPG ever made. Donating blood at healers' and giving spare change to beggars hardly constituted a major chunk of the gameplay, and unlike BG2 or PS:Torment you don't actually get to make ethical decisions -- you just have to be good, or else. Still, I think people respect U4 because at least it *tried* to break out of the kill-Foozle mold, and introduced ethical questions in what is now considered the early age of computer gaming -- 1985. All that while at the same time producing the most technically advanced, and biggest, CRPG to date. In '85/86 there was Ultima IV and there was -- everything else. (Though SSI was churning out a bunch of high quality RPG's around that time too -- the Phantasie series, Wizard's Crown, Rings of Zilfinn, etc.)

Having said all that, I probably prefer Ultimas III and V to Ultima IV. Ultima III because it was the first one that I played, and remains the seminal gaming experience of my life (what an experience, at ten years old, to have a whole world on a 5 1/4" disk!); Ultima V because it was the most complex and sophisticated Ultima that I played when it was new (I didn't play U6 or U7 until years after they came out) and because some of its innovations (particularly NPC scheduling, but also the rudimentary physics engine) *still* are rare in modern RPG's.

But that first time playing Ultima IV on Christmas day 1985 -- peering over my brother's shoulder as he wandered the huge world as a Ranger, taking the moongate out of Skara Brae and getting lost in the dark forest -- wow.

Sean Tudor

08-01-2002, 06:56 PM

runesword forger

08-01-2002, 08:07 PM

I like those Ultimas, there was no doubt that they were among the best CRPG's of that era. But the hordes of creatures was annoying, and plowing though wimps took too long -- the combat system wasn't good enough to justify it.

Somehow the sum of Ultima III-V exceeded its parts, though. The premium price and packaging made you feel like those games had to be special before they hit your drive. Origin and Infocom really went the extra mile in those days.

Gordon Cameron

08-01-2002, 08:09 PM

I agree completely. The combat wasn't great in those Ultimas and it often became monotonous. (I remember specifically in Ultima IV some of the battles became unbearably tedious, when you had to maneuver 8 characters, especially in mountainous terrain etc.) But as you said, the Ultimas were more than the sum of their parts. And the packaged goodies were just fantasic. The manuals, the cloth maps, the beautiful boxes... everything about them proclaimed "class act."

Bub, Andrew

08-01-2002, 08:43 PM

Hmmm... Yeah, big world and a nice series of non-linear tasks and quests.
Ultima IV also had no "foozle". No bad guy. I can't think of any other RPG that had the courage to do that. In fact, I still remember, what? 17 years later? exactly when I realized my "quest" was to become the Avatar (I didn't read any manuals so I was playing it like Ultima 3). All my lies, my running from combat, my not donating, etc., made me far from my goal and suddenly I went on a Christmas-Day Scrooge-like quest to become the Avatar.

Yeah, I think I'll side with Scorpia regarding Ultima IV. It's still my favorite by a long shot. (I'm not agreeing with her other reviews though, I never saw them.)

Mark Asher

08-01-2002, 09:41 PM

Jessica

08-02-2002, 05:40 AM

GEnie was a lot of fun, but they moved so slowly to a Windows version it just killed them.

And therein lies a long tale of corporate stupidty that boggles me today. GEnie was an excess capacity service of GE Information Services, a division of GE that billed around $500 million a year. We were the only consumer division in GEIS; all the other customers were businesses, such as banks, etc. As such, no one in the organization really liked GEnie, because we ate resources they wanted for their customers. We were grudgingly tolerated, however, because of the $10 million or so we billed every year, 50% went directly to the profit line and that turned out to be 15% of GEIS's bottom line.

At least four times that I can remember, Bill Louden, the General Manager of GEnie, went to Helene Runtaugh, the President of GEIS, and begged for $50,000 to have a GUI developed to compete with AOL's AppleLink and PC-Link services and CIS's offline interfaces. Each time, he was turned down because that was too much money. Eventually, the guys in the IBM PC RoundTable did a CIS-like interface called Aladdin in their spare time and were eventually paid the lordly sum of around $3,000 for the rights (as I recall; I'm a bit hazy on the actual terms).

And that was it. GEIS's objective was to squeeze every possible penny out of GEnie and put nothing back into it. I remember begging for money to give as advances to sign more MMOGs; my Games products accounted for between 20% and 25% of GEnie's total revenues in any given year. From 1989 through 1991, I was allowed to spend a grand total of less than $40,000 in advances on 9 or 10 games. The only reason we got MultiPlayer BattleTech was, after I failed to get $30,000 in advances from GEIS so Kesmai could port a game we all expected to gross at least $600,000 in the first year, Activision took a flyer, cut a deal with Kesmai and paid for the porting. God bless them; if they hadn't, it would never have happened.

Here's how utterly stupid Ms. Runtaugh was: In 1993, Bill Louden, then President of NVN Online, a privately funded start-up based in Houston, TX, negotiated a $7 million buy-out of GEnie to help jump-start NVN. It was approved all the way up the GEIS pecking order until it came to Ms. Runtaugh's desk for signature. On the day she was to sign, AOL announced their quarterly results (they were public by then), noting they were valued at $200 million. Runtaugh immediately reversed course and nixed the GEnie buyout, saying if AOL was worth $200 million, so was the text-based, moribund GEnie.

GEIS sold GEnie to IDT 1995-96 for about $1 million.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

AOL being late to the game was actually a big advantage. They build their service from the start to integrate into Windows.

Well, actually, no, we didn't; we always reused code wherever we could. The first PC version of AOL was built in 1988-89 from the Apple II code for the Tandy computers under a deal similar to the one AOL (then Quantum Computer Services) cut with Commodore, using a proprietary GUI and named PC-Link. I'll never forget the day the guys in shipping came trundling down the hallways with carts, dropping off boxes with Tandy computers in every office for us to assemble. I hated the Tandy; it required three different sized screwdrivers in both standard and Phillips heads to put together and though it was touted as IBM-PC compatible, there was a bunch of software that wouldn't work right with it.

That Tandy GUI was also ported to work on the old IBM PS1 (?) and renamed Promenade, which I believe was intended to compete with Prodigy. By the time I left AOL in early 1989 to return to GEnie, we had four services, none of which could talk to each other: Applelink:Personal Edition for the Apple II and IIgs, QuantumLink for the C64/128, PC-Link for the Tandy and Promenade for the PS1. We were working on APE for the Mac to ship in late Spring of 89, and had just hired Doug Whately, formerly with Microprose on the Darkland team (and formerly my assistant , then Chief SysOp of the APE Games Forums), to make PC-Link work with the old Geoworks operating system.

For those who don't remember, Geoworks was actually Windows before MS got arund to making a version, a GUI-powered OS that would run on virtually any IBM PC-compatible processor that existed at the time. It beat MS-DOS hands-down and gave DR-DOS a run for the money. Unfortunately, they couldn't compete with MS's exclusive bundling deals with the hardware manufacturers and evetually died out, even though it was a far better alternative to Windows1.0 through to Windows 3.x.

It was this version of the PC-Link software that was eventually ported over to MS-DOS and Windows, although I'm unsure of which Windows version; it may have been 2, it may have been 3. Around 1992-93, AOL changed it's name to AOL, combined all the services into one entity, shut down the C64/128 service and went public.

And that's my history lesson for the day, <g>

-Jessica

Qenan

08-02-2002, 05:43 AM

I was on GEnie too, and then moved to CServe. I'd forgotten all about downloading and reading messages offline to save money. Heh.

GEnie was a lot of fun, but they moved so slowly to a Windows version it just killed them. AOL being late to the game was actually a big advantage. They build their service from the start to integrate into Windows.

Actually, AOL's big advantage was that they started out on the Mac. Then when Windows came out, they already had a design that worked. (Yes, they had to port it... but compare that to GEnie and Aladdin, it's offline browser...)

I tried AOL early because I was using a Mac in 1990... I actually preferred GEnie because it's text interface was much, much faster on my 2400 baud modem. (Didn't switch to the PC until 1992, basically because I needed a powerful machine to crank through research statistics and the Quadra's were appallingly overprice. Then I discovered PC games... mmm. Civ.)

Derek Smart [3000AD]

08-02-2002, 07:02 AM

]heh, I remembered the first time CIS actually wrapped a GUI around CIS. Oh boy, what a ruckus that was!!! Do you remember that one?

I never used the CompuServe GUI. I went straight to OzCIS. Best offline forum reader out there.

ah yes!!! I remember OzCIS. I switched to using it when I started using OS/2. Man, talk about nostalgia!!

I was on GEnie too, and then moved to CServe. I'd forgotten all about downloading and reading messages offline to save money. Heh. .

haha, I remember that. Sometimes you go online, start reading/writing and forget - completely - that you did't have to do it online. Thats why proggies such as OzCIS were so popular. You could just download all the threads of interest and read them online.

For those who don't remember, Geoworks was actually Windows before MS got arund to making a version, a GUI-powered OS that would run on virtually any IBM PC-compatible processor that existed at the time. It beat MS-DOS hands-down and gave DR-DOS a run for the money. Unfortunately, they couldn't compete with MS's exclusive bundling deals with the hardware manufacturers and evetually died out, even though it was a far better alternative to Windows1.0 through to Windows 3.x.

It was this version of the PC-Link software that was eventually ported over to MS-DOS and Windows, although I'm unsure of which Windows version; it may have been 2, it may have been 3. Around 1992-93, AOL changed it's name to AOL, combined all the services into one entity, shut down the C64/128 service and went public.

And that's my history lesson for the day, <g>

-Jessica

I remember Geoworks and used it extensively for quite awhile. The problem with it was that the MS+IBM juggernaut was still moving ahead full steam with their Windows alternative and Geoworks just couldn't keep up with that onslaught.

MS later broke off to do their on Windows thing, leaving the incompetent buffoons at IBM, holding the OS2 bag. They [IBM] clearly didn't know what to do with OS/2. As soon as they thought they had it in the bag, they took off with OS/2 Warp and got severely beaten by MS. Again.

I was a consultant for IBM while all this was going down and I saw it all happen first hand.

Geoworks was, in different terms, quite sparkling. In fact, IIRC, the chums at MS at one point were quite terrified that it would actually have legs. In fact, that became the incentive to make such a major haul from Windows 2.0 to Win 3.1 (I think it was).

Then, all of a sudden, Geoworks just upped and disappeared. Just like that. In fact, I don't think anyone noticed - except those (like me) who actually bought it and had the nice Blue and White box nestled on the shelf next to the paper-like box that was Windows 1.0 (2.0?) - the same type of box MS used for its FS series. I still have every version of Windows - and every PC OS ever developed. Including GeoWorks I think.

I had no idea that GeoWorks is actually what became the early kernel for AOL (at least thats what I think you're saying). Interesting indeed.

Anonymous

08-02-2002, 07:45 AM

Thanks for the history lesson, Jessica.

I miss GEnie, myself. Of all the time I spent online, that is where I remember most of the best threads/converstions. I remember the long threads about B5 and DS9.. all the hard feelings there. The smaller chat communities meant you could actually KNOW people. I think one day there was a grand total of 200 people in all of chat. And yeah, I spent (I think it was Thursday) at Scorpia's RoundTable.

Of course, the dropped /tells were fun too. :P :oops:

DennyA

08-02-2002, 08:00 AM

I was on all them old-style online services... DENNYA ... BIX, CI$, GEnie, AOL, People/Link, Portal... People/Link was THE place for Amiga dweebs.

I miss the SFRT the most. It was a blast to be able to talk to folks like Damon Knight and Joe Straczynski.

I used Amiga Aladdin myself. Pretty nice program, although not as blazing-fast scrolling through messages as the PC version.

Here's the part nobody's talked about: Remember when it was like $12 an hour for "high-speed" 2,400 baud access? Those early games of Air Warrior had to be enjoyed by the second!

When I was in college, I used to log on to P/Link, grab the messages in my terminal program at a whopping 2400 baud, and then save the buffer and read them offline. Because Hattiesburg, Mississippi had no local dial-in numbers for any online services, I just called P/Link's "direct" modem line in Chicago. Of course, between long-distance and the $6/hour charge, this got pretty expensive. So I formed an Amiga user group, and did monthly "club disks" with the best shareware/freeware apps, Amiga animations and MOD music files, etc. The user group dues went to pay my phone bill. :) Cut to 15 years later and now I can browse the net for pennies an hour on my freakin' Palm OS cell phone!

Anonymous

08-02-2002, 08:53 AM

I remember speaking with you, Denny, on the Amiga area. I went by off-white Knight, OWKnight, or OWK back then. I believe that RT was one of my early "brushes with celebs", since I recognized several of the names of authors and Amiga World contributors, etc.

Anonymous

08-02-2002, 11:32 AM

Jessica

08-02-2002, 12:31 PM

I hadn't thought about GEnie in a long time. I was the Amiag game sysop (and an assistant sysop on Scorpia roundtable) for a couple of years in the early and mid '90s, and it was a fun place to be. Does it still exist in some form? And does anyone know what Scorp[ia's doing these days?

Peter

As far as I know, GEnie is deader than Gore's personality. Some of the old sysops tried to revive it on the Web for a while after IDT bought it, but to no avail.

Andrew may know what Scorp is doing, since he's been in contact with her lately.

Anonymous

08-02-2002, 12:33 PM

Thanks, Jessica. And -ulp!- sorry for the typos. :)

Peter

Anonymous

08-02-2002, 03:47 PM

I was asked to replace Scorpia because the editors at CGW at the time had lost faith in her ability to do her job well.

Either that, or she's right and everyone else is wrong. Yes, that seems likely.

Qenan

08-02-2002, 04:02 PM

Neat to hear from all the former GEnie-ites. I hung out on the SFRT as "CrazyHorse".

Didn't know all that about AOL; just remember seeing adds for it on the Mac long before I saw adds for the PC. Only used it a short time; I hated almost everything about it (starting with "you've got mail").

But GEnie I really, really miss. I even remember trying NVN for a short while, but it used threaded discussion groups instead of GEnie-style bulletin boards and I didn't like it as much.

Jason Cross

08-02-2002, 09:03 PM

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who writes published reviews (online or offline) and hides behind anonymity - like "Scorpia", and others out there (mostly online) - has already lost all credibility.

How can I be expected to take your opinion seriously if you won't even stand behind it enough to put your name on it?

As for the "staff disagrees with writer" thing: I can't speak for other magazines, but I'll tell you how it is with us at CGM.

Not everyone here plays every game. We simply don't have time. A review is simply one person's opinion, and as long as they produce reasonable explanations for that opinion and back it up with real examples, we can't object too strongly. We do, however, feel it is our responsiblity to have the reviews be in the ballpark of the opinion "of the magazine as a whole." So if a freelancer comes back with a review that totally bashes a game that's supposedly great, or vice versa, we'll all play the game and see if they're on crack or not. If so, we get someone else to review it and let the freelancer sell the article to someone else if they can.

I'm not sure if there's a kill fee involved. Honestly, in my nearly 4 years at CGM, I don't think we've ever killed a review. I can't recall it happening, anyway.

As an example: Tom Chick hated Deus Ex, and trashed it. But he gave totally legit reasons why, and backed it up. It was a fine review, and while I disagree with his opinion and loved DX, I think his review is valid. Had he reviewed it for us, I think we would have killed the review not because it was invalid, but because as "a magazine" we loved the game, and it would be pretty silly for us to talk about it reverantly in the future or give it awards if the review we published was very negative - even if a review is just "one man's opinion."

So it's a balancing act. You've got to give reviewers the slack to have their own opinion, and have it differ from your own somewhat. But published reviews also reflect on the publication as a whole, online or offline, and you can't go around publishing reviews that totally contradict how everyone at that publication feels.

And sometimes even in-house reviewers give stellar reviews to Black & White. So people fuck up. :wink:

Kool Moe Dee

08-02-2002, 10:43 PM

Am I the only one who, upon hearing the name "Scorpia", thinks of this instead?

http://www.nacs.net/~guardian/images/wl1.jpg

(And hey, it's RPG related! It's not totally, completely, 100% off-topic!)

Erik

08-03-2002, 12:42 AM

As an example: Tom Chick hated Deus Ex, and trashed it.

Hey now, he didn't totally trash it. According to the review (http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/jun00/deusex.html):

There are times when it's fun.

wumpus

08-03-2002, 12:51 AM

Well, I guess the joke is on you, because in the canon of Tom Chick, "fun" is an insult.

Tom Chick

08-03-2002, 01:59 AM

Hey now, he didn't totally trash it. According to the review:

Quote:
There are times when it's fun.

Actually, that line was sort of an inside joke to myself. The rest of the paragraph goes on to explain how awful I thought the game was. It's like saying 'the AI is broken, the graphics are horrible, it crashes all the time, and it's completely unbalanced, but, hey, it's fun'.

-Tom

mtkafka

08-03-2002, 02:38 AM

Tom do you secretly love Deus Ex? because you title each part of your review with Sgt, Peppers song titles. And since that's a phenomenal album, so must be Deus Ex!!!

etc

Dave Weinstein

08-03-2002, 01:17 PM

We're just loaded up with old GEnie hands, it looks like.

Incidentally, a fair number of the GEnie folks from the SFRT ended up at SFF.net.

--Dave
Ex-Genie UNIX RT Head

Jessica

08-03-2002, 03:25 PM

We're just loaded up with old GEnie hands, it looks like.

Incidentally, a fair number of the GEnie folks from the SFRT ended up at SFF.net.

--Dave
Ex-Genie UNIX RT Head

Hey, Dave, how's it hanging?

-Jess
Ex-GEnie Games Manager, ex-Mac RT Head

Rob de los Reyes

08-03-2002, 08:00 PM

Ken Hicks

08-04-2002, 07:55 AM

In the early to mid 90's, I depended on reviews in magazines to help determine if I wanted to buy a game or not. The only internet help available to me was the Prodigy BB's, and although they had some very knowledgeable people on certain games, many newer titles were not covered.
The most glaring example of a poor review (IMHO) was for "Crusaders of the Dark Savant" in CGR {I think). I had already bought and was halfway through the game when the review came out. I don't recall the reviewer's name, but it was obvious that he had only played the game for 2 or 3 hours, barely getting out of the first dungeon, and then he trashed the whole game.
I was appalled that a magazine would print such an incomplete review, and AFAIK, they did not revisit or follow up on the game or the review.
I wrote on *P that "this was like opening and closing the door of a Rolls Royce, then writing a complete review of the car and calling it a poor automobile".
Were reviewers not held accountable when they did such shoddy work?

Mark Asher

08-04-2002, 08:10 AM

If it was CGR they may have only played the game for 5+ hours. They used the same three reviewers to review all their games, so if they had 12 reviews in an issue, there's no way they spent a lot of time with each game. That was undoubtedly the drawback of their system. Otherwise it was pretty cool.

DennyA

08-04-2002, 08:26 AM

Were reviewers not held accountable when they did such shoddy work?

It's ultimately the editor's responsibility to make sure the reviewer has done his job right. I hadn't been working at COMPUTE! for long when a review came in of Infocom's BattleTech: The Crescent Hawk's Inception. The reviewer talked about how the game was set-up -- you were at an academy, you'd go through training, and then you'd be sent off on missions.

However, it was obvious from the review that the guy had only played the first mission or two of the game! Because very early on, the academy gets destroyed and you're off on your own, without ever finishing the training program.

So I had to kill the review (and I eventually just wrote it myself). This was a guy who'd been writing for C64 magazines for years. We never used him again, and I only remember seeing his name a few times in Amiga magazines after that before he faded into the woodwork. (Even when he did do his research properly, he wasn't a great writer.)

Then there was the case of the guy who had the C64 column. He turned in his column and included hands-on impressions of the C64 version of some Microprose PC/Amiga game. Problem was, Microprose had cancelled the C64 port -- they'd never even started it. The guy was very apologetic, I think claiming deadline mania, but we never used him again. Unlike guy #1, though, this guy is still writing 13 years later, even for big markets like PC Magazine. (However, the stuff I've read of his in recent years, to his credit, has all been accurate.)

I was at CGW for the Scorpia thing. The problem there was that not only did the opinions she was expressing not reflect the opinions of the editors who played the games she was covering, they also didn't match the reactions of most of our readers. In the end, the responsibility of the magazine is to provide usable information to the reader trying to make a buying decision. A well-written piece will include enough information so that even a reader with different priorities than the reviewer will be able to see if that game will appeal to him/her. But when the reviewer's opinion is conistently at odds with the vast majority of other gamers, the reviews aren't serving the majority of the readership any more. They're not necessarily "invalid" -- but they're not achieving the purpose for which people buy the magazines.

Good editors will take the time to familiarize themselves with the games that they've assigned reviews for, hopefully taking the time to play at least a bit of the games themselves, and doing a quick sanity check on any reader reaction and looking some of the less insane online forums. (No, reviews aren't slanted to reflect what's said on Usenet -- god forbid -- but if there's a case where it seems like a large percentage of users are having the same problem and that's not reflected in the review, or if the game's getting a universally enthused reaction and the reviewer does nothing but bitch, then it's time to take a close look at what was written.)

Mark Asher

08-04-2002, 08:40 AM

"But when the reviewer's opinion is conistently at odds with the vast majority of other gamers, the reviews aren't serving the majority of the readership any more. They're not necessarily "invalid" -- but they're not achieving the purpose for which people buy the magazines."

I can see that, but if the reviewer is a good writer, I'd enjoy reading contrarian reviews. Tom's Deus Ex review is a good example of this. You might not agree with it, but it raises interesting points and makes for interesting discussion. Here's his review:

http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/jun00/deusex.html

Why wouldn't a magazine run this review? Just because it goes against the grain? Maybe publications should poll their readers to find out what kind of review scores to apply?

Qenan

08-04-2002, 08:51 AM

But when the reviewer's opinion is conistently at odds with the vast majority of other gamers, the reviews aren't serving the majority of the readership any more. They're not necessarily "invalid" -- but they're not achieving the purpose for which people buy the magazines.

Mark beat me to it, but I don't understand this; it reads as though reviews should be done by opinion poll. I mostly read reviews for their entertainment value, and I always hope the reviewer will put the game in a larger context. For thumbs up or thumbs down (with or without justification), usenet and message boards suffice.

DavidCPA

08-04-2002, 09:17 AM

Why wouldn't a magazine run this review? Just because it goes against the grain? Maybe publications should poll their readers to find out what kind of review scores to apply?

It's a fine line Mark. If a reviewer consistantly (I'm talking 70-80% of the time) rates games different from what other reviewers or the general public do, the reviewer's articles become editorial pieces rather than reviews. At that point the mag editors have to make decisions like Denny described above.

I don't work in the writing business, but I see similar situations in the corporate world. An employee who consistantly disagrees with management and other coworkers on business decisions is soon marginalized and later leaves the company (sometimes voluntarily, sometimes not). A devil's advocate is good to have, but opposing almost everything makes you a pain in the ass.

-DavidCPA

DennyA

08-04-2002, 10:06 AM

The difference is that Tom is easily one of the best writers in our industry. So even if his view is contrary to that of the unwashed masses, he includes enough information in his reviews to (1) explain and support his conclusions, and (2) allow the readers to make their own judgements as to whether the game will be appealing to them, if they're looking for different things in a game than Tom is. The overall tone and conclusion of the review might not match the general consensus, but Tom does a great job of describing the game so people can decide that the game might still appeal to them even if it doesn't appeal to him.

Too many inexperienced, lazy, or jaded writers play the game, come to a conclusion, and then write the review solely to support that conclusion, omitting too much of the objective description that's necessary for folks to be able to draw their own conclusions. It's the old formula review -- general description, gameplay, multiplayer, graphics & sound, end with a list of bitches and a want list.

In the end, reviews should be entertaining, but that's not their primary purpose. The majority of readers look for them to help make a buying decision. Opinion is vital, because otherwise it's just a regurgiation of the sell sheet. But when those opinions are totally contrary to what the audience thinks, the review loses value. If reviewers love the gaming equivalents of Ernest Goes to Camp and despise the gaming equivalents of The Empire Strikes Back, then you're not serving your readership's needs.

If a reviewer gets jaded, burned out, or sees the industry go in a direction that's not where he/she wants it to head and starts slamming games that the vast majority of purchasers really like--games that are objectively "good games"--what purpose is being served besides letting the writer vent?

Erik

08-04-2002, 10:17 AM

If a reviewer gets jaded, burned out, or sees the industry go in a direction that's not where he/she wants it to head and starts slamming games that the vast majority of purchasers really like--games that are objectively "good games"--what purpose is being served besides letting the writer vent?

Tom's review of Deus Ex is well written and I agree with some of it, but how do you figure that an unmitigated pan of Deus Ex doesn't fall into the "slamming games that the vast majority of purchasers really like" category? You said something about Tom backing up his criticisms, but I don't think that gets him off the hook when it comes to your final point. I don't know exactly how you're defining an "objectively good game", but it's hard for me to believe that Deus Ex doesn't meet the criteria.

Anonymous

08-04-2002, 10:20 AM

What Denny said.
I was there for the Scorpia thing and intimately involved in the entire matter. (I was her editor at the time.) It'd be unfair to her to go into details here, and it's just so much dirty laundry anyway--but the bottom line was, there was just becoming way too much of a disconnect between her and the editors, as well as many of our readers, over our opinions on the games she was covering. It was just getting too dysfunctional.

But on another matter...

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who writes published reviews (online or offline) and hides behind anonymity - like "Scorpia", and others out there (mostly online) - has already lost all credibility.

How can I be expected to take your opinion seriously if you won't even stand behind it enough to put your name on it?

I'd agree in theory, when someone posts or writes something ONE TIME anonymously, but c'mon. Scorpia WAS this person. She was not "hiding", because she used (and continues to use) this name for decades now. How is that "anonymous"? Because we don't know her birth name? Who gives a shit what her birth name is? We know this person's taste, and writing, and longstanding take on games. You can read a Scorpia review and factor in everything you know about her tastes as they apply to you--just like with a Roger Ebert or Tom Chick or whoever. I don't think she has any less credibility in this regard whatsoever just because you personally don't know that her actual name is Jane Smith or whatever.

Okay--the wife says my omelet is ready. Yay!

Qenan

08-04-2002, 10:32 AM

There is no such thing as an "objectively good game", because "good" is in the eye of the beholder.

You can be objective about "fit and finish" issues -- is it bug free, does it include a useful manual, etc. You can describe the game accurately. But deciding whether a game is fun is completely subjective. I hate RTS games. I've tried a bunch and never liked one. Many people do like them. Are they good or not? It's really a meaningless question without the context of what you are looking for in a game.

I'll buy that Scorpia was reviewing games based on where she wanted the industry to go... doesn't everyone do this?

I dunno. I don't challenge CGW's right to decide Scorpia was not for them, but the justifications do smack of writing to tell folks what they want to hear.

(Bashed a typo.)

Anonymous

08-04-2002, 10:58 AM

I don't challenge CGW's right to decide Scorpia was not for them, but the justifications do smack of writing to tell folks what they want to hear.

It was us deciding that a writer was just too far out of synch with US, the editors. That's our right as a magazine. Right? If someone is submitting articles that time and again have the entire staff going "Huh?", at some point, the decision is going to be made to lose that person.

To this day, we'll print reviews --even written by full-time staff members--that do not jibe with what the majority of the staff felt. As was said earlier in this thread, reviews are singular opinions, obviously. Even though I'm Editor-in-Chief of CGW, I routinely sign off on reviews I totally disagree with, if the writer has played the game, justified their points and made intelligent arguments. BUT, if the same writer is consistenly writing things that I and the entire staff disagree with--why at some point, we're going to pause and reflect on whether we have the right person for us.

That's what this was mostly about. It's not that we felt she wasn't telling READERS what they wanted to hear. She wasn't telling US, the CGW staff, what WE wanted to hear. And not just one time, but in every article.

And in other news, my wife makes a great pesto omelet. I think I'll keep her.

JeffL

08-04-2002, 11:10 AM

Great thread.

Some of the worse writing out there is from people who read Usenet and forums and then just parrot what they hear. Some of these writers are scared to death they'll get a review "wrong".

You've got to know a genre well enough to have a good perspective, and then write your own critique of the game, regardless of what the rest of the gaming world thinks. If you're experienced in a genre, the odds that you're opinion will be contrary to the rest of the gamers in that area are real, but also not extremely high. I'd argue that if you don't write an occasional review that goes against the grain, you're probably reading too many other people's opinions before you write. OTOH, if every single review you write is contrary to what fans of the genre think, you're probably the wrong person to be reviewing that area of games.

I went back to my library of old CGWs and read some of Scorpia's stuff. It does seem like she got to the point where she would have panned BG2 and Diablo and everything else in the RPG field. That would be like a writer in the sim field getting pissed that developers weren't advancing far enough in dynamic campaigns and new theaters of operations and then giving IL-2 and Enemy Engaged: Comanche vs. Hokum, etc. 1 star reviews.

Kool Moe Dee

08-04-2002, 11:56 AM

I can see that, but if the reviewer is a good writer, I'd enjoy reading contrarian reviews. Tom's Deus Ex review is a good example of this. You might not agree with it, but it raises interesting points and makes for interesting discussion. Here's his review:

http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/zones/reviews/pc/jun00/deusex.html

Why wouldn't a magazine run this review? Just because it goes against the grain? Maybe publications should poll their readers to find out what kind of review scores to apply?

The biggest problem I have with Tom's infamous review is that often its criticisms are just really inconsistent. For example:

You might as well complain that in a first person shooter, you can't see your feet when you look down.

or you'll notice that your character has both hands on the assault rifle while he's climbing a ladder

Why is one OK but not the other?

Most of the games cited at the top of the review as being superior suffer from the exact same flaws that supposedly torpedo Deus Ex. Metal Gear guards have the "out of sight, out of mind" problem that Tom spends an entire paragraph blasting. System Shock 2 uses the same keycode and puzzle systems that are roasted in the "waaaah they told me I was gonna be in a sci-fi action movie and I'M NOT!!!!!!!" paragraph. Crates are also OK in System Shock, but not OK in Deus Ex, and crowbars too. Audio logs that tell you passcodes versus bums on the subway who tell you passcodes. Same difference.

The whole review just sounds like Tom had PMS or something. The points raised, sure, they're interesting, and they have varying degrees of validity IMHO. But, I think as a review it's a disservice to readers. There is no mention of a lot of basic information about the game: the length of gameplay (a standard item now, since people are concerned about getting their money's worth), the upgrade system or character progression system in the game (other than the very authoritative mention at the top of the review that it "doesn't really matter"), the multiple solutions to puzzles, the weapon selection, the list goes on and on. Even the amusing "stick a rusty nail in your eye before playing this game" reviews on GameSpot at least tell you how long the reviewer suffered.

The review just does not give a decent impression of what it's like to play the game -- someone who knew nothing about Deus Ex would come away with a very hazy idea of what the game was about, or how it played, other than that there were a lot of crates and that it showed your character holding a weapon while you climbed ladders. When a review relies too much on cute phrases, nitpicking, and "witty" commentary, rather than some actual meat-and-potatoes info and criticism, it stops being useful IMO.

As a critique, sure, it's as valid as anything on Usenet. As a review, no good. (And I hope that's the reason nobody ran it.)

wumpus

08-04-2002, 12:04 PM

Let the Funke Funke Wisdom rain down, my man!

Anonymous

08-04-2002, 12:13 PM

JeffL

08-04-2002, 12:23 PM

As I remember the review (rather vaguely), I agreed with a lot of what Tom wrote--the game did lack a certain level of polish--but disagreed with his conclusions. For me, Deus Ex is the best Looking Glass game that LG never made. :)

Peter

But ya know - that's a good review, IMO. If he described the game accurately (and he apparently did, since you agree with a lot of what he wrote) and then opined that it just didn't punch his ticket, that's OK. As long as you know WHY he didn't like it, you're informed enough to make your own decision.

Dr Fear

08-04-2002, 12:23 PM

And in other news, my wife makes a great pesto omelet. I think I'll keep her.

An objectively good omelet? Or one that you like but that most eaters wouldn't?

DennyA

08-04-2002, 01:03 PM

Jeff Lackey hit it exactly on Tom's Deus Ex review. His take on the game made me wonder if someone had tortured puppies to death in front of him that morning to put him in such a foul mood. He was criticising things that were the norm for the genre, and Deus Ex seemed to just be the game that pushed him over the edge on being sick of said norms. [Edit: Just found the link and re-read the review. Yow. I remembered he hated the game, but wow, he HATED the game.]

I can understand why some would be shy to publish that review. It would be like a negative review of Half-Life, Warcraft II, or any of countless other games that that were generally perceived as being very good. Because in the end, 90% of readers don't even notice bylines. They think of it as the "CGW review" or the "PC Gamer review." And thus, it's the magazine's reputation as a provider of reliable information that's at stake in the end.

Dr Fear

08-04-2002, 01:20 PM

As I remember the review (rather vaguely)

There doesn't have to be anything vague about it since the review is linked directly above your post.

Jason Levine

08-04-2002, 02:13 PM

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who writes published reviews (online or offline) and hides behind anonymity - like "Scorpia", and others out there (mostly online) - has already lost all credibility.

Er, what does this say about Desslock? Actually, I agree with Jeff Green on this one. An identifiable pseudonym can carry as much or more credibility than a "real" name. And, for what it's worth, Scorpia was using that name as her handle on CompuServe back in the mid-80s. I don't think you could call it "hiding."

Gordon Cameron

08-04-2002, 03:39 PM

It's always pretty easy to find out what Desslock's name is. I think it was printed in some of his CGW columns, though I don't remember for sure. You don't get the sense he's hiding it. I never knew Scorpia's actual name.

But I don't have a problem with handles (except that maybe they can seem a little nerdy and contribute to a "ghettoized" appearance for gaming journalism). Maybe it's a leftover of a bygone time, the early Compuserve era or whatever, but after all Scorpia flourished in that time so I wouldn't blame her too much for it. And if she uses the same handle consistently (as she did), she's still open to criticism for her views.

Bub, Andrew

08-04-2002, 04:35 PM

A colorful pseudonym works well for RPG columnists, I think. I'm more leery about it with reviews, I think the reamed developer deserves to know where the ream is coming from... but I agree with the distinction that time helps. Scorpia and Desslock are hardly fly-by-night critics and their long term use of their names makes them more credible. That's why I indentified Desslock as "Desslock" rather than "Stefan" when I used his quotes for my RPG article. "Desslock" carries more weight in the RPG community.

I do think there's a problem with Scorpia hiding her real name though. There should be some sort of accountability for stung developers or outraged fans (unless you're doing some sort of Mr. Sneaky or Fatbabies type thing). The distinction is that Desslock doesn't hide. It's easy to find his real name, and I wonder about people who do hide as Derek put it "to this day".

Mark Asher

08-04-2002, 05:25 PM

The only time it would ever be a problem is if the reviewer keeps changing pseudonyms. Scorpia was Scorpia. Why should it matter if you know her real name is, say, Betsy Williams?

Desslock

08-04-2002, 05:42 PM

>Why should it matter if you know her real name is, say, Betsy Williams?

Well, exactly. It's not as if disclosing the name "Jason Cross" or "Mark Asher" makes you any more, or less, accountable for what you write. It's not as if those names are any more meaningful to anyone, unless you also want to attach address, phone numbers and bank account numbers, you're just as anonymous for all practical purposes.

In terms of the "when to remove a writer" question, if you accept the (completely reasonable) position that the people making the magazine actually want it to generally reflect their views -- I think no longer giving work to someone who writes stuff you consistently disagree with is the best approach. The alternative is really to be more intrusive and proactive in shaping the writing -- when I write, I want as much freedom as possible to write what I want, largely unedited. My view has always been that if you don't like what I write, for whatever reason, then just take the pen away.

Stefan

Bub, Andrew

08-04-2002, 08:48 PM

At first glance there's something that feels dishonest about using a pseudonym. A "what is this person hiding?" factor that I think Jason Cross above is reacting to. But then again I suppose it's really no different than calling oneself "O'Henry" or "Mark Twain" professionally.

But what if Scorpia was actually Richard Garriott all this time!? Working secretly to sandbag the competition... Heh, unless she was working for free, I presume her editors knew exactly who she was. No foul there then.

Sean Tudor

08-05-2002, 05:04 AM

Here is an old interview with Scorpia at JustAdventure :
http://www.justadventure.com/Interviews/Scorpia/Scorpia.shtm

Anonymous

08-05-2002, 05:40 AM

Thanks for the link. A fun read.

In the interview, she doesn't really address the reason for a pseudonym, and the interviewer doesn't seem to press her.

I didn't have a problem with using it, myself. It wasn't so a pseudonym as a persona and it helped bring character to a magazine that was otherwise on the dry and formal side (considering it was all about games). I never thought she had an axe to grind--except with bad games. Though we sometimes disagreed about which ones were bad. I don't think Scorpia ever owned an Amiga, and the differences between Amiga and IBM versions in those days were like night and day. (Drakkhen being an outstanding example.)

Peter

Bernie_Dy

08-05-2002, 07:46 AM

Too many inexperienced, lazy, or jaded writers play the game, come to a conclusion, and then write the review solely to support that conclusion, omitting too much of the objective description that's necessary for folks to be able to draw their own conclusions. It's the old formula review -- general description, gameplay, multiplayer, graphics & sound, end with a list of bitches and a want list.

The majority of readers look for them to help make a buying decision.

Okay, I think I understand what you mean, but when I'm interested in making a buying decision with the help of a review, "general description, gameplay, multiplayer, graphics & sound, end with a list of bitches and a want list" is valuable stuff that I want to know about.

Or did you mean that a less experienced writer would write it with little style? If every article a writer put out was a laundry list review, yeah I see how that could get old.

JeffL

08-05-2002, 08:14 AM

Bernie, I'm guessing that what Denny is referring to is the old trap of basically listing all of the features off the box and calling it a review. As you know, it's that tough battle you fight every time you write a 500 word review of a complex game: you can either use the wordcount to list all of the features, which the reader could read off the box or the webpage, or try to convey what the game is all about in a way that the reader can decide if he or she will enjoy playing the game, without listing every game option and button.

I hate writing mini-reviews, those 150 word paragraph reviews, but I realize that they're great remedial training sometimes. All you can do in a 150 word review is capture the heart and soul of the gameplay, with very little room to dig into every detail of every feature.

DennyA

08-05-2002, 08:37 AM

It's the old formula review -- general description, gameplay, multiplayer, graphics & sound, end with a list of bitches and a want list.

The majority of readers look for them to help make a buying decision.

Or did you mean that a less experienced writer would write it with little style? If every article a writer put out was a laundry list review, yeah I see how that could get old.

Yep, I was referring to formulaic structure, not the actual content of the reviews. Those things need to be in there, but it's amazing how many reviews follow that exact structure -- probably 75% of them, before they're edited.

Derek Smart [3000AD]

08-05-2002, 12:04 PM

Anonymous

08-05-2002, 07:42 PM

Well, exactly. It's not as if disclosing the name "Jason Cross" or "Mark Asher" makes you any more, or less, accountable for what you write. It's not as if those names are any more meaningful to anyone, unless you also want to attach address, phone numbers and bank account numbers, you're just as anonymous for all practical purposes.
Real names do have more meaning. It's not just about accountability, because ultimately the publication accepts that when they choose to publish the article in the first place. But with psuedonyms, there's a definite disconnect from the writer and the persona.

This may be a bit "out there," but let's say a writer leaves/dies/does something stupid. If it's "Scorpia," you could, in theory, bring on another Scorpia and readers may or may not even know. If the original complains (assuming he/she/it is alive), you could deny that's the person. And if they did something really stupid/unethical, that person could resurface under another psuedoymn, or under his/her/its own name, and lose the baggage of the persona. If no one outside of the publication knows the person's name, they have less accountability.

Jason Cross will always be Jason Cross, wherever he goes. He takes his reputation with him, and unless we hired another Jason Cross (like the guy that reviewed The Untouchable for some Mac website), we'd need to build back that rep with his replacement.

You could "kill" Desslock today, and for those that only know you by your handle, you're basically a new writer.

Anonymous

08-05-2002, 07:57 PM

Whether you think Deep Throat (the Watergate informant, not the porn) is a real person or a journalistic construct, the content wasn't diminished by anonymity.
That's because Deep Throat's words were transcribed (and fact checked) by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and published in the Washington Post. They accepted responsibility and were accountable for his/her/its words, and we assume they knew the person well enough to guage his/her/its credibility. Had those articles been written by Deep Throat, well... the Post probably wouldn't have run them.

And that's true of any article written under a psuedonym, but I get less of a sense that an individual is really accepting responsibility for the article, it's just the slightly more nebulous publication.

I do think it's funny that some people saying it's cool to write under a handle are the first to dismiss or mock comments from anonymous posters, even when/if their points are valid... as if typing one's name, or handle, in a "Username" field is some great act of personal accountability.

Qenan

08-05-2002, 08:04 PM

Well, exactly. It's not as if disclosing the name "Jason Cross" or "Mark Asher" makes you any more, or less, accountable for what you write. It's not as if those names are any more meaningful to anyone, unless you also want to attach address, phone numbers and bank account numbers, you're just as anonymous for all practical purposes.
This may be a bit "out there," but let's say a writer leaves/dies/does something stupid. If it's "Scorpia," you could, in theory, bring on another Scorpia and readers may or may not even know. If the original complains (assuming he/she/it is alive), you could deny that's the person. ...

Jason Cross will always be Jason Cross, wherever he goes. He takes his reputation with him, and unless we hired another Jason Cross (like the guy that reviewed The Untouchable for some Mac website), we'd need to build back that rep with his replacement.

Um, I've got news. Lots of "real" sounding names have worked exactly this way. For example: "Cecil Adams", "Ann Landers", "Robert Cringely", etc. (In the three examples, the name eventually "stuck" to a single writer, but they didn't start out that way.)

The only difference is that with "Scorpia" you are more aware of the possibility. In the case of "Desslock" you can't say even that, since he doesn't hide his real name at all -- Desslock is just a long-time handle that carries credibility with CRPG fans.

Rob de los Reyes

08-05-2002, 09:27 PM

That's because Deep Throat's words were transcribed (and fact checked) by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and published in the Washington Post. They accepted responsibility and were accountable for his/her/its words, and we assume they knew the person well enough to guage his/her/its credibility. Had those articles been written by Deep Throat, well... the Post probably wouldn't have run them.

Although, presumably, Scorpia's employers knew her well enough to guage her credibility and accept the responsibility for her writing. And when they no longer thought well enough of it, they demonstrated that responsibility by letting her go. I'm not sure I see the difference.

And, of course, there are plenty of magazines (like, The Economist, for one) that run all articles anonymously, not even pseudonymously. The idea, I suppose, is to emphasize the news over the spectacle of the author. Even their film/art/book reviews are anonymous (except when reviewing the work of an Economist employee). So where's the accountability? In the integrity of the content. In knowing that it doesn't matter who writes for The Economist, their articles are likely to be well-written and trustworthy. If all you're after is accountability, it can be had at a number of levels -- at the level of the writer is but one of them.

Again, I don't want to slip into advocacy. Use your real name or don't. I'm just not prepared to argue that writing under a pseudonym automatically detracts from credible writing. Improperly done, it can be troublesome in certain contexts. But it doesn't seem fair to say that using "Scorpia" is wrong because you can surreptiously replace the "real" Scorpia. You could surreptiously replace Jason Cross, and, due respect to Jason's well-earned fame, most of your readers would never know the difference. The industry people would, but your readers wouldn't. And the readers are the victims in your scenario, not the industry. The industry can attempt to hold the magazine accountable -- I'm sure magazine editors rarely have much success telling an irate developer "Gee, it was all the writer's fault."

Anonymity can lead to abuses. Maybe it's more open to abuse than real names. But a short walk through the history of slander and libel litigation (and op-ed pieces and film reviews and social criticism) will assure you that real names are no guarantee of truth and virtue. By the same token, it just doesn't seem to me that anonymity guarantees a lack of truth and virtue.

Finally, I hope you weren't implying that I'm one of those who criticizes anonymous forum posting. I don't think you were. For the record, however, I was your biggest fan, Steve, back when you were "Guest." :wink:

Jason Levine

08-12-2002, 06:56 PM

This may be a bit "out there," but let's say a writer leaves/dies/does something stupid. If it's "Scorpia," you could, in theory, bring on another Scorpia and readers may or may not even know. If the original complains (assuming he/she/it is alive), you could deny that's the person.

Yes, the Dread Pirate Roberts wasn't the real Dread Pirate Roberts, and neither was the Dread Pirate Roberts before him.

Aleck

08-13-2002, 10:48 AM

Um, I've got news. Lots of "real" sounding names have worked exactly this way. For example: "Cecil Adams", "Ann Landers", "Robert Cringely", etc. (In the three examples, the name eventually "stuck" to a single writer, but they didn't start out that way.)

I didn't know that about Robert Cringely -- anyone got verification of that?

I admit I've only been reading the Cringely stuff for about 2 years, but I never thought there might have been a Cringely before...

ASJunk

DennyA

08-13-2002, 10:53 AM

Yeah, Cringely is not only a pseudonym that's been used by numerous writers (and the first was much better than his successors), but one ex-Cringely even managed to get the rights to use the name for a book and a PBS show.

This Cringely:
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20020808.html

...is not the same guy who writes for Infoworld now. But he was that Cringely in the past.

Phun with pseudonyms!

Ah, here's a brief explanation of the Cringely situation: http://buzz.weblogs.com/2001/08/14

Mike Cathcart

08-13-2002, 12:42 PM

Cool link. But the paragraph that began 'As an aside,' really should have began with 'As most of this article, and the real reason I started writing this even though I pretended to make it look like an article about stats that I mentioned for three lines on my way to talking about how I helped with the idea for the Cringley character, ...'

Jessica

08-14-2002, 04:11 AM

Check out the happenings at:

http://www.unknownplayer.com/archive/02/08/13/988.php

I'd be interested to see some thoughts about the situation.

Mike Cathcart

08-14-2002, 06:45 AM

Can't say I'm shocked or anything, but this is one of the funniest things I've read all week:

Edit: At the request of Ubi Soft the word "Review" in the title has been changed to "Writing".

Joe O'Malley

08-14-2002, 07:36 AM

Real names do have more meaning. It's not just about accountability, because ultimately the publication accepts that when they choose to publish the article in the first place. But with psuedonyms, there's a definite disconnect from the writer and the persona.

When I first went online in the 80's just about everyone had an alias. The fact is that everyone got to know each other by those aliases. Once established it is easier to go by the alias than your real name, just because that's where the recognition is. In the case of a writer, the name you use is basically your "brand" of product. If everyone knows Scorpia or Desslock, that's where the value is. Most casual readers won't know "Stephan" from a hole in the wall, but they've been seeing Desslock for years.

I never saw the issue with aliases, so long as they were used consistently. It's the same with real-sounding names. Trolls will use multiple phony identities no matter what. Whether they are on as aLBaLiCKstiCK23 or "Tooms, Harry" it's still going to be just as fake. Taking a particular stance against aliases, especially when used in a potentially hostile environment like the internet, is just prejudicial.

Mark Asher

08-14-2002, 07:38 AM

Odd story. I'm not sure what to make of it since I'm not exactly sure what's been done. If those writers are on Ubi's payroll, they should have disclosed that. There seem to be a lot of denials going around though.

Personally, I've never believed that fansites were good sources of objective reporting. They can have a lot of helpful information, but I expect them to be biased in favor of the game they cover.

DennyA

08-14-2002, 08:05 AM

Aren't fansites often funded by the companies in question? At the very least, by companies taking out ads?

I'm not sure I'd lump fansites in any "journalism" category. Most of the ones I've seen are more the 21st century equivalent of a fan club newsletter.

Ethically, I think a site that's sponsored by a game's publisher should disclose that relationship, even with a simple "Sponsored by xxxx" or "thanks to xxxx for the support." But I wouldn't lump this in with, say, Ubisoft paying a Gamespot freelancer a couple grand on the side for a favorable review. You don't visit many fan sites looking for objective reviews.

Rob de los Reyes

08-14-2002, 12:09 PM

I read through the whole UP thread and I also slogged through one of the threads at the the official Shadowbane forum. The forum goers don't seem as distraught about whether Heralds are paid as they do about vosX's reference to "idiot fans." Here's the quote in question from the UP article:

Having bias or an agenda in reporting on the battles (whether true or not) will tarnish what we do ... Even if Diamonds was totally impoartial, our idiot fans would uses his affiliation to bash the report and the herald program - I know it for a fact.
Here is vosX's explanation (or one of them, at any rate) from the Shadowbane boards:

That was taken a bit out of context. In my earlier "personal" email that was 'off the record lol' to Unknown Player, I was explaining to him the reasons why someone inside a guild - should not report on guild warfare. Even if the War Reporter was so professsional and unbiased (even though he was an active participant in the war or guild) there would be idiots that would still call him biased and call the program biased.
As I gear up for the inaugural season of my NFL Houston Texans, I'll add only: You make the call!

Jason Cross

08-14-2002, 12:41 PM

There's a big difference to me between a supposed journalist or critical reviewer using a pseudonym and a fiction author.

If Dave Barry is a fake name, well who cares, it's just entertainment. Samuel Clemens was just writing stories as Mark Twain. I've read that in his journalist work (of which there was a good amount), he used the name Samuel Clemens.

But as Steve said, how do I know who wrote something if it's by "Scorpia?" Could be Scorpia, could be the company intern. But if the company interns puts my ACTUAL name on an article, I can sue.

Bub, Andrew

08-14-2002, 01:13 PM

Samuel Clemens was just writing stories as Mark Twain. I've read that in his journalist work (of which there was a good amount), he used the name Samuel Clemens.

Actually, I think this is why he came up with Mark Twain. He wanted to keep them seperate and, well, he knew better than just about anybody how savage book critics were in the mid 19th century. I think he thought, at one time, that he would more likely be remembered for his newspaper work.*

(I could be wrong about this)

Rob de los Reyes

08-14-2002, 01:25 PM

You can sue anyway. Sue the publication -- heck, you could even sue "Scorpia" with the notion that the caption in the case title will change once you find out who that is. Anonymous tipsters may or may not be protected from discovery requests, but I'm confident that the identity of the author is discoverable absent some compelling situation unlikely to arise in the context of game reviewing. But believe me, the kinds of things an author would have to say in a game review in order to be liable for money damages are so outrageous that you'd certainly sue the publication anyway for a lack of editorial vigilance. You could write the sentence "This game is a piece of ****!" (and use the real swear word) 500 times in a row and publish it as a review. Put your name on it or put "l33tNiNer" on it -- you still have no case. Write something like "Mr. G. Developer stole the idea for this game from Mr. X and failed to compensate him. Also, he has crabs." Now you've got a lawsuit. And, again, it doesn't matter what name you put on the review.

*Edit: By the way, I'm not endorsing a lawsuit against Scorpia. :wink:

Desslock

08-14-2002, 01:36 PM

>There's a big difference to me between a supposed journalist or critical reviewer using a pseudonym and a fiction author.

There's a big difference between a journalist and someone who writes about games.

>, how do I know who wrote something if it's by "Scorpia?" Could be Scorpia, could be the company intern. But if the company interns puts my ACTUAL name on an article, I can sue

You're mistaken. It'd actually be easier for me to sue someone who used a distinguishable moniker like "Desslock" than it would be for you to sue someone who wrote under the name Jason Cross. Having a name that I could use to build some "branding value" was one of the main reasons I used one.

Like I indicated in my initial reply, you're implying level of accountability that's just not meaningful, in any event. If someone doesn't like a Trespasser review by Jason Cross, then they'll appropriately devalue future opinions printed under the name of that reviewer. If someone doesn't like a Baldur's Gate review by Scorpia or Desslock, then they'll appropriately devalue future opinions printed under the name of that reviewer. Whether the name used by the reviewer sounds "normal", or otherwise, is meaningless. It's not as if readers know us personally, or anything about us, so from a practical perspective the name is irrelevant

Sure a magazine could be deceptive, and print ghost-written reviews under a previously used name, but they're just as (un)likely to do so with any name, and who cares if they do anyway? They'd just be risking reducing any goodwill associated with that name. If people are using pseudonyms to write coverage when they have a clear conflict of interest or to just write multiple review, obvious that's bad, but they're just as likely to do so by adopting a "normal" name as a goofy moniker.

Stefan