Hey Tom looks like you have gained the steely gaze of Carl (executive producer) from SSI regarding your Silent Hunter 2 review. Check this Silent Hunter 2 thread.

---

Quote:

I usually don't comment about reviews, but when it comes to Tom Chick, I have to say that I have NEVER seen a positive review for any SSI product. His review fails to consider little of the positive aspects of SH2.
In my opinion, his review tends to be rather mean-spirited. He has his opinions and I have mine. As I often say, it is much easier to write about 'em than it is to make 'em.

I will lose no sleep over his review of SH2, but it is a shame that people will be influenced into avoiding this product because of his one-sided review. If you are not going to consider Silent Hunter II because of his review, I suggest you read other reviews or read some of the comments (good and bad) on the forum at www.subsim.com.

Monster Zero and Sean Tudor, you really need more facts before you write off this product, but that's just my opinion. Please consider other people's opinions before you make your decision.

Regards,
Carl

---

He's not going to lose sleep, but he is going to single Tom out by name on a public forum? That's classy. But I do think Tom's reviews ought to include discaimers warning the reader how weird his tastes are. I love a Tom Chick review, but I don't usually make purchases based on them. :^)

Brad Grenz

What's Carl's excuse for the 132 Gamespot reader reviews that give him an average of 6.3? Is there a legion of mean-spirited amateurs, too?

Carl Norman wrote:

"when it comes to Tom Chick, I have to say that I have NEVER seen a positive review for any SSI product."

I could refer him to the positive reviews I've written of both Imperialisms, several of the Panzer General games, and a Close Combat or two. If he'd like something even more recent, he's more than welcome to consult my list of last year's best games, where he'll find SSI's Warlords: Battlecry. I could also refer him to an extremely positive review of SSI's Earth 2150. If he'd like something in the sim flavor, he'll find that I've reviewed every incarnation of SSI's Flanker series in glowing terms.

-Tom

"As I often say, it is much easier to write about 'em than it is to make 'em."

This kind of statement is so common an attack at reviewers, and so lame. It's a lot easier to write about a Ford Pinto than to make one. It's a lot easier to write about the movie Planet of the Apes than to make one. What does that prove? I'm really disappointed in Carl's response.

I believe a direct Tom quote re: one of the Imperialism games was (and correct me if I got this wrong): "better than Civilization."

And hey--all reviews are one-sided. A review isn't a public debate, with point and counter-point. It's an opinion. Which is pretty much one-sided by nature.

I received a mediocre review from Tom on a game, but he was fair. His review showed that he was familiar with the genre and spent some time playing my game. His writing was coherent and intelligent. Sadly, this puts Tom far ahead of most game reviewers.

I did have some nits to pick over it, but they were specific things that were matters of opinion (save one small matter).

I would tend to cut Carl a break. If you haven't had a beloved creation criticized, you don't know how hard it is not to crack back. Carl should have been specific about his disagreements and dealt with that, not Tom.

dan s
RuneSword II (an %%%^*%^%#^%$!*! great game)
www.runesword.com

"I would tend to cut Carl a break. If you haven't had a beloved creation criticized, you don't know how hard it is not to crack back. Carl should have been specific about his disagreements and dealt with that, not Tom."

Most of us know some designers pretty well, and know how much they put into a product. But Carl's a pro and has been around long enough to rise above personal attacks. Disagreeing with a review is fine, and being specific about what you don't like about a review is even better, but taking a personal shot at the reviewer because you don't like the review is pretty bush league. It would be different if your were talking about some kid who clearly didn't play the game and who criticised it without any reasoning, but every one of Tom's criticisms were backed up with data. It doesn't mean Tom is "right", but it certainly means that his opinion is valid.

It's flat-out absurd for Carl to suppose I've never written a postitive review about an SSI title. I can only assume he was having a knee-jerk reaction, which I understand, but it's bad form in a public forum. I've known and respected the man's work for many years and I'm disappointed that he'd resort to something like that.

-Tom

Tom, this is just another in a countless series of cases where developers have gotten mad at us for giving them less than an 8.5. The fact that these people respond this way to our criticism is very telling, in my opinion. We certainly shouldn't be wasting our time defending ourselves about it. There's more important work to be done right now.

On a side note, check out the reader reviews for Sub Command, the better game of the two. The text reviews are generally very positive, but the average rating is surprisingly low. As if it's been deliberately affected this way. I've seen a lot of mysterious cases such as this with reader reviews lately.

In addition to changing our rating system, I've recently been thinking about abolishing our reader reviews altogether. Or at least changing the way those work, perhaps to a thumbs-up/thumbs-down system like ZDNet uses.

Geez, and I thought I was the only
"mean-spirited chick" around here...

Greg as someone who posted a reader review for Sub Command at GameSpot I urge you not to abolish reader reviews. If you are going to abolish something why not get rid of the reader scoring system ?

I honestly feel the public should be allowed an opportunity to express their opinions on your website. Reader Reviews are a perfect way for people to read some real world opinions from others and not just the official reviewer.

It does get a bit silly, though, with the reader reviews. People organise rallies to beef up the score of a game, or to trash it completely. There were hundreds of vindictive former Anarchy Online players who spammed the reader ratings with 1s and managed to get the game down to a 5.0, which is very unfair. It would probably have been a lot worse, if not for the war waged by many people with suspiciously Norwegian names giving the game 9.9 lol.

I never read the reader reviews either. I'll notice that the first day the game is in stores there are already 300+ "reader reviews" with an average of 9.1. Which means a bunch of comments like "The previous games rocked so this is one is sure to rock. Rating 10.0." I'm sure that there are some good comments in there but its too much work to filter out the BS.

"But Carl's a pro and has been around long enough to rise above personal attacks. Disagreeing with a review is fine, and being specific about what you don't like about a review is even better, but taking a personal shot at the reviewer because you don't like the review is pretty bush league."

I complete agree with this. I am merely noting that it can be hard to walk the walk. It's not like this is anything new -- I think some prominent novelists got into flame wars with book reviewers in the 19th century.

My "cut a break" comment came from the feeling that Carl probably wrote that in a bad moment. Most developers are not fragile-brained basket cases, but there are a few notorious ones.

dan s (okay, 2 messages, I'll get an account)

That wasn't Carl, it was one of the out-of-work MAJESTIC bots.

Sean, the problem with reader reviews is some are spoiling them for the many. I think the solution may be to continue to allow text reviews, but to replace the 1-10 rating system (for readers) with a thumbs up/thumbs down system like ZDNet uses. I think one of the best parts of GameSpot is that it lets people post their own reviews. Those who are skeptical of our official reviews can get all the second opinions they need. But when the reader reviews are slanderous, misleading, or clearly intended to undermine the official review, that doesn't help anybody.

Then you would have to implement a moderator system and cull reader reviewers ? Or would that be too time consuming ?

Greg:
"Those who are skeptical of our official reviews can get all the second opinions they need."

Would be nice to have some way to verify that the readers in question actually played the game, though. Maybe on a second page put "Please enter the bar code number from the game box" before the review is posted or something.

Because if I'm going to buy a game, I generally could care less what someone that hasn't played it thinks of it.

As for the AO thing, on my desk right now is the official response to me from the Better Business Bureau of Eastern North Carolina, Inc. "A copy of your experience has become part of the firm's Better Business Bureau file." Because customer service is hard and whatnot. So yes, AO was that bad--bad enough that I actually filed my first BBB complaint ever, and I've had my fair share of broken, disappointing products.

Greg:

Keep the Reader Reviews, but perhaps add an Amazon-style "Was this review helpful to you" link for every one. Let Readers Reviewers get scored as well.

On Tom and Carl:

Let's see. Tom liked the last game he reviewed that I did, so back off, Carl. :)