I should probably go do that, especially as I use IPR as a source for a lot of my games. Also it would be a good way to get a feel for writing game reviews in general.

- Neil.

Games Co-ordinator
Dragonmeet 2008

"There is no place for Messiah here - it`s only hobby" - Deckard @ The Burning Wheel Forums

I think that whilst we are all decent, stand-up people, we live in a cynical age where collectivism is a pretty alien concept. I think that in our circles of community there would be more than a few that would voice disbelief that any intra-CE reviewing was legit. Of course, the upshot of this would be something akin to 'the new honesty' where we are ultra-hyper-critical in order to throw off the possible accusations. And thus the review is worthless.

There is another problem and thats to do with the process that we go through here on CE when we develop a game. I imagine that if, for example, I wrote a review of Hot War and savaged the system etc. then Malcolm would have fair reason to ask me why I didn't mention any of these things when I was playtesting the game?! Shouldn't our point of critique be prior to publishing rather than post-publishing?

I'd prefer that we encouraged extensive testing and comment on games as they are designed so that we can agree that they are excellent before publication.

All that said, we do have some excellent reviewers and as it stands, we could benefit from them.

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

Reviews can also just tell people what a game does (and doesn't do) and what someone can expect.

There are also people on here who don't make games (and don't want to make games) but are keenly aware of how games play.

I think it would be good if we encouraged reviewing in general, since when I'm a consumer I'd rather I could find a review rather than having to read many APs.

The IPR reviews allowed me to grade the books too. I really should go and do some on RPGnow too, but I'm keen to be persuaded by this thread on whether I should.

I'm in no position to review games myself, not having played enough of them, but I think that a review fills a different purpose to the rest of our activities when published on a public website. It is a form of advertising, not a form of post-publication playtesting, a chance to tell potential customers more about the games. So I think we should both encourage and write them.

http://www.solipsist-rpg.com/ - http://cubicle-7.com/starblazer/

If I review 3:16 on my blog, then fair play. If I write a short review on IPR, that's fair enough too.

If I review it on RPG.NET, then it could seriously backfire: it might look like we'd privately arranged to give each other's games positive reviews.

Personally, I think reviewing each other's games (in the sense of posting reviews for public consumption, rather than private critiques) is a huge can of worms. I'd find it very hard to be objective.

Graham

I cannot agree, David. Reviews that are advertising presented as reviews have to carry a little warning in real life, to saying 'look, this is all make-believe bollocks'. You know - the 'this is a paid advertisement' stuff. The reason a bona-fide review is great advertising is because it removes the response of 'well you WOULD say that!' from the reader. It neuters that route to cynicism.

By our existence, the Collective Endeavour seeks to develop and promote each others games. Therefore whilst we can try to be objective we will never be seen as truly objective. If I was to give Solipsist a middling 3/3 style rpg.net rating, how could I be believed on the stall when I talk about the game? Moreover, if I see things in the game that I think could be changed or improved in maybe a second edition, why would I wait to say them in a public review when I could say them here or by email? To me (and I accept as always, I could be wrong) it doesn't make sense.

Actual play on the other hand is another thing totally. Thats the representation of the game 'on the road' and is usually backed up by comments from participating neutrals. It allows people to see how the game plays out and indeed, in our case, nearer to how the designer intended. AP is good.

Neil

Take the King's shilling at http://www.omnihedron.co.uk/dutyandhonour/

And that is also why it's so useful and such a good swayer of undecideds.

-Matt

Realms Publishing

I can see where you are coming from Neil, and yes, I understand the concern that giving a fair review of a game you didn't like (and being realistic, as our stable of games grows it is almost impossible to imagine that we will all like all of our games) could easily conflict with how you sell it on a stall. I feel the same tension in my job (working for a political party) when I don't agree with one of their policies, and yes, I agree, that I usually deal with that problem by not making my dislike of the policy public knowledge. So yes, I am with you there.

But I still think reviews have a strong value that Actual Plays do not. I've read a number of Actual Plays for games that were full of enthusiasm and energy and awesome, and all that stuff, but actually told me nothing about the game, not in the way a review would. They don't tell me how the mechanics work, or what the book looks like, or what the theme of the game is, just how someone's game works. Reviews do tell you that sort of thing.

So yes, there are reasons why we might want to avoid reviews (as individuals), but I think that reviews in general are very valuable tools, and I don't think that AP reports actually fill the same niche.

http://www.solipsist-rpg.com/ - http://cubicle-7.com/starblazer/

There seem to be two questions here:

1. Are reviews useful/a good thing/helpful to selling our games?
2. Should we review each other's games?

I'd say a definite yes to the first and a definite no to the second.

Graham

I agree completely with both Graham and Neil. I don't think anyone is saying that reviews are a bad thing or should not be encouraged, nor do they have their place. But I think we, the designers who write these games, should not be actively encouraged to review one another's games.

Those enthusiastic people who are a part of this great community but do not write games (and we salute you!) - please don't let this stop you posting reviews and actual play reports! That I can wholeheartedly get behind.

But I can't endorse the principle of mutual exchanges of reviews other than actual play reports which, as Matt points out, are a different kettle of fish entirely.

We discussed this topic on Awesomey Games a while back.

Graham

I think Review Exchanges are BS. They're absolutely going to be perceived as I scractch your back/you scratch mine. And they are, IMHO, going to be socially awkward from the get go. (Oh, I mean a straight swap of reviewing each others games.)

And trying to get reviews purposefully for advertising is a recipe for disaster. Trawling for a good review.

But I would value, say, Tony LB reviewing "With Greater Power" by Mike Miller. Because I know that Tony LB knows his stuff about Superhero games and Indie Games. That's peer review, and its useful.

Is the answer that we can't review anyone else's game on here? Maybe, that is the case now.

And the world is short of reviews, to be honest.

Obviously, I couldn't review any of the games I helped develop. But what about Fearmonger? Or Gateway? Edgewalkers? Wildfire? They are books that are at varying distances from the centre here, and from me.

No way could I review Cold City, Hot War, L&L and so on, though.

This seems like an odd stance, to be honest. Most of the people I've talked to seem to think that a good review is one of the best kinds of advertising, and by that I mean a well-written review, not just one that gives the game a high score. The placement of that review is probably a bigger issue, as some venues have greater impact and higher viewer figures than others. One should not trawl for a good review, true enough: one should trawl for a good reviewer.

I personally don't see a problem with reviews from peers, after all, I already do it. I pride myself in that I can offer a professional and detached view of a product without letting personal prejudices get in the way. It is extremely rare that anyone at all has no preconceived notion about a product before they sample it personally, in this day and age of hype. The important thing is being able to put these preconceptions to one side and approach the product objectively without showing fear or favour. Objectivity is key; if you cannot support a claim with examples, then it is not a strong enough point to make for or against the subject. Above all it is necessary to remember that what does not appeal to you, may well appeal to someone else. A review is more useful if it clearly shows who the target audience is, than if it merely attempts to pass comment on whether a game is 'good' or 'bad'.

I totally agree though that it is a big no-no to review games for which you had a major input or controlling interest. I'm quite happy to admit that I was always enthused about Solipsist since it was announced, but insofar that those threads were open to the general public, does that make me any different from Joe Bloggs? The thing is, my enthusiasm for the project was borne out by its result, and that is a very important distinction to make. Expectations are so easily dashed if too mighty a claim is made on the forthcoming project.

Anyway, my main concern about discussions such as this one is that they may preclude anyone who might otherwise have an interest in doing so from reviewing Indie games, and I do strongly believe that well-written reviews are an effective form of advertising.

Ash

I totally agree that "well-written reviews are an effective form of advertising." This shows in sales after a good review goes into Pyramid, RPGnet, KODT, etc.

What I was saying trying to say is that getting a pal to write a review purely as an advert is a recipe for disaster. Seeing it purely as a vehicle for positive press isn't a great idea. Actually, it was interesting reading Alex's point linked by Graham, that he was wary of only-positive things said about something.

Anyway, I think we agree that a review has to be a genuinely useful review in and of itself -- looking at the good/bad, etc. and have an independent take on things.

I guess I'm trying to find where that independent line falls.

Matt, for instance, could write an independent review of a|state, say, in Realms. But that wouldn't be possible now for Hot War.

Oh, and I'm totally in agreement with "One should not trawl for a good review, true enough: one should trawl for a good reviewer."

There are few enough of them around, so I heartily encourage reviewing.

Yep, you've got to have integrity in a review. I've seen far too many sycophantic reviews on RPG Net recently, and the ones that get hacked to bits the worst are those where the reviewer is connected to the publisher

Ash

I would agree. Reviews are only worth their salt when they are written by someone objective. Sure they love the genre, etc etc, but other than that, they don't know the publisher. Anything else completely debases the review. To get things reviewed I've basically had to send out freedie copies to either folks that promise to review or well-known reviewers. it can backfire, but it's the only way to retain integrity in the process.

However, what is useful is not a review as such, but a 'synopsis' or a 'trailer' - this is Game X, this is what it is about, and this is roughly how it works. No critisism of content, just a good solid overview. I wouldn't call it a review, but it is useful for people interested in a game and wanting to know more. Often, it's actually quite hard to get a decent overview of what a game is about. As to where you'd publish such a thing though, I'm not so sure. A thread in rpg.net? A separate section here?

Cheers,

Greg

Have you thought about making use of RPG Net's Game Index at http://index.rpg.net/ ? I think this was pretty much the intention they had for creating it.

Ash