Barnes on Games presents Theel, Mann and Campbell on Games- Review Corner Showcase

Read more...

Isn't it possible to say that these guys write excellent reviews without spitting out hatred towards video reviews?

Not until Minature Market green lights video reviews. Then they will be the best thing ever.

Kind of like how paid reviewers were just shills...until they weren't.

I greatly prefer written reviews. I appreciate the work you do Tom, but written reviews have to be more carefully crafted by their nature in order to make their points. They can't resort to gimickry or bling to hide their faults.

Granted, if someone fails at a written review they're toast. But when they succeed they're sublime. Good writing is majestic. No one in this industry has the time or money (or incentive) to create majestic video reviews.

S.

Jeffery, do you have some kind of evidence that these guys or any other writers I manage - or myself - are "shills"? Because I will tell you straight up that these are hard working, honest people that are doing an awful lot of work for literally peanuts. They wouldn't be doing it if they weren't honest, passionate about games and committed to good writing about games. I personally wouldn't have them on staff if I felt like they were shilling anything and I'll stake my entire career to defend my writers' credibility. We also have the blessing of the Miniature Market people - including the owner of the company - to provide completely on-the-level, no punches pulled reviews. I insisted on that in our first conversation about this project because, as I told him, we needed 100% integrity if this were to succeed.

But maybe you can indicate to the readers here that you have some kind of example of the reviews where there is "shilling" going on?

While you're at it, I'd also like for you to find any instance in my 13+ years of writing about games professionally where I have at any point declared that paid writers are shills. In fact, why don't you take a look at the article I wrote a couple of years ago "Games Journalism?" where I argued that part of the reason that games criticism has failed to break through a certain level is because there is no professional incentive for there to be serious, consistent games writing. In other words, because the field is largely filled with unpaid, amateur writers and those with the talent and ability to do more are doing so elsewhere, where they are being paid.

Pretty rude to attack not only me, but also these writers, their credibility and the work they are doing right here on the front page. But please, by all means, if you have something to back up your BGG-style passive-aggressive comment, let's hear it.

Sorry Tom- no hate spat here- I just don't care for video reviews at all. It's a format that I think has pretty much torpedoed widespread interest in written reviews, and there are very, very few video review programs that provide any kind of consistent, valuable games commentary or criticism. Most are, unfortunately, exactly what I said- cutey-poo.

I'm not disparaging or discrediting the hard work and commitment that running a show like The Dice Tower requires. But shows of substantial quality and consistency are very few and far between.

And games writing has suffered because of it, IMO.

Firstly, let's clear up your misuse of the word passive-aggressive. That in no way describes the shots I take. They are clear and in no way passive.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Pete Ruth is one of your staff writers, is he not? He also is the same Pete Ruth who spared no effort in condemning reviewers who were compensated saying time and time again that their objectivity could not help but be compromised in the process? I seem to recall numerous rants on the subject.

I also seem to recall a certain dismissive tone used in reference to Tom Vassal. the implication being that his success at branding his name and actually being able to make a living off his reviews somehow invalidated their worth and credibility.

Also, having a large ad for a commercial website posted on the front page of the fort masquerading as an article is in somewhat poor taste.

Lastly, I would be willing to bet all of my lunch money that the second Minature Market offered to pay for video reviews, the snarky shots, like the one Tom rightly calls you on, would quickly be replaced with glowing praise for the cutting edge work being done on their site.

Full disclosure- Pete Ruth expressly asked to NOT be paid for his work. _I_ insisted. I can produce email evidence if need be. Pete and I have scrapped in the past, but after getting to know him I will tell you that he is one of the most straight up genuine people in the world. And I ain't letting him work for me for free.

Tom Vasel is one of the most successful personalities in games. I've not ever suggested that his success has made him "invalid". He sells a very successful product. Good for him. Doesn't matter what I think about it.

Charlie and I both explicitly discussed keeping video reviews off the table because neither of us care about them. If MM wants them in the future, we would likely not be involved and they would probably be in house productions.

What's in "poor taste" - aside from you taking personal umbrage at a "political" post on our FB page last week under the guise of offering us "advice"- is being a dick like this on the front page of our site not only to me but also to these writers that I am very proud of and want folks to take a look at.

Feel free to PM me wih any further negativity or unfounded aspersions.

Michael said...
Pretty rude to attack not only me, but also these writers, their credibility and the work they are doing right here on the front page. But please, by all means, if you have something to back up your BGG-style passive-aggressive comment, let's hear it.

I am sometimes just astounded that you can make comments like this. You JUST DID THE SAME THING to all video reviewers, who put a ton of work and credibility into their work.

Michael, whenever someone insults you, your hackles go up, and you scream about "passive aggressiveness", and then you do it yourself! Like I said, your writers do a fine job. It is perfectly simply to say that they do a fine job without then insulting a pile of other reviewers.

Wow! You're certainly right it's something completely different this week...it's an infomercial.

You know what? I don't remember you EVER showcasing the Forts writers in this way and never on the front page. It is totally out of order for you to use a front page spot to advertise ANOTHER SITE. Since when did we become a free advert for Miniatures Market? I don't remember that being discussed. You want to advertise another site then PAY FOR IT like everyone else has to.

I don't really care how you earn a crust but I totally object to you trying to redirect subscribers to the Fort to a DIFFERENT site so that you and your writers get more exposure by bouncing off this site.

I repeat, where was this fawning praise of OUR writers when it was needed? Nowhere to be seen.

Tell me again how the Miniatures Mart gig would not affect the Fort at all??

While I'm at it, I have no fucking idea who the staff members are at this place any more. Shellie asked us to contact her for seats at the table. I never heard anything back, so who are the overlords and what are their responsibilities? Interested parties would like to know in case, you know, they don't have enough time to devote to the Fort due to other paying gigs.

Concerning video reviews - Michael and I were in complete agreement about the vision of the Review Corner being mostly written content to remain distinct from the other media outlets. That may limit our exposure perhaps, but we both vastly prefer the written medium.

I could definitely see The Review Corner having videos some day for miniature product reviews or perhaps painting tutorials or modeling examples for the miniatures side of the site.

I actually am a Dice Tower and Tom Vasel fan and I don't think I've hid that before. I walk on my lunch break at work every day and consume a great deal of their content. Tom was also gracious enough to review A Fistful Of Dinero and gave it the "Approved" verdict. I met Tom at Origins in 2014 and liked him. I will likely see him at Gen Con and say hello, so no ill will at all.

In regards to this being a big advertisement? I can see that. I don't think Michael really intended it that way, I think he didn't have an article and thought this could be a neat idea and I have to admit when he mentioned he was going to do this the other day I didn't think about the backlash that would likely occur.

Is this a step farther than linking your own reviews on other sites? Probably a bit, but it's still the same kind of thing.

I get the anger but I think people are taking things a bit too seriously. This is the closest thing Michael has to a blog and I view this as that type of post.

I guess we'll never be able to shake the shill thing even if we've given 2 1/2 stars or less to the following:

Chaos Marauders
Eclipse Ship Pack One
Empire Engine
A Fistful Of Dinero
Just Desserts
King Of New York
MERCS: Conflict
Mythotopia
Space Hulk: Death Angel
Imperial Assault Ally/Villain Packs

My own game was given an average/low average rating. Miniature Market's subsidiary Homeland games has over 100 copies of it still, so do you think they really wanted a less than glowing review?

King of New York is another one that I haven't seen a negative review on from a major media outlet. In a world where we're shills there's no way that's getting less than 3 stars.

A couple of writers have said they feel even more free to give a negative review in this context as opposed to a review copy from a publisher as there's no risk of damaging a relationship.

I'm a little pissed off that you used a professional model in your photos, attempting to pass it off as Charlie Theel. Just another example of how low you'll stoop for click-throughs.

No gamer is that pretty.

Yes, it is quite a big step further than linking your reviews and I'm surprised that you can't see that. I never had a problem with Barnes linking his reviews in previous years but this is an outright ad for MM. Some of those writers are absolutely nothing to do with the Fort and have never contributed here.

The shill argument is not relevant and never has been.

Tom, Michael did say "which I believe to be superior to" and specifically referred to "the horde of cutey poo video reviews." So he stated that he personally prefers written reviews (I read the same essential comment by people on BGG all the time) and wasn't necessarily disparaging *all* video reviews.

I usually prefer videos, but not necessarily the review aspect of them. I just want a brief visual interactive overview of a game to gauge my interest from, and I've usually clicked off by the time the *review* portion comes around. I do value your voice and opinion as a game reviewer, Tom, but by the time you've gone through the gameplay overview in a video I can already tell how you feel about the game (usually).

Well written reviews can be a lot more satisfying in terms of game analysis and perspective, but a lot of times I don't care about that too much unless I'm already into a game or on the fence about buying it... then I want to read how others feel about it in a more in-depth sense. I suppose it's odd to only read more involved written reviews of a game after I've already bought and played it, but that is where the value of written reviews is of most interest to me.

For my time, SU&SD is the best thing, overall; very entertaining and creative (without being hokey), timely (who has time to watch those 45 minute game overviews/reviews??), an engaging personality with good pacing (I can't watch Rahdo for more than a few minutes because he can be so jittery and hurried in his delivery that it physically makes me nervous), and with a real personal review and perspective that is not only described but is often demonstrated as part of the video production. He is great at specifically showing you *why* he likes/dislikes a game (or aspects of the game) as an integrated part of the experience he's presenting. Within ten minutes, he's given you some solid game analysis, some entertainment and a good visual overview of how the game plays and feels.

I've been a fan of both Barnes' and Vasel's reviews for many years now. Both reviewers (and their respective types of reviews) have influenced my game purchases or lack thereof. I totally get how as a writer, Barnes wanted the project that he was leading to be only written reviews. Makes perfect sense. That being said, I don't think a game review necessarily needs to be written, much less written eloquently to be effective.

With a video review (especially ones that are done as well as the Dice Tower) you can actually see for yourself the quality of the components, actual gameplay, and whether or not the game looks fun or if it's to your liking. While this can be conveyed through a well written review as well (such as those penned by Barnes and Charlest), much more is left to the readers imagination. I'm not the slightest bit interested in watching a video review of a book or a movie, but for a board game, it makes perfect sense.