Is it time for some more critical analysis of rule sets

[tankkommanderParticipant 6421xp 0]

@lawnor “I also do not find the Playthroughs to be the final answer in giving a feeling for how a game plays. Once you’re done filming those videos it might be good if the player sat down with the camera and give his feelings and opinions, possibly after a day or two to think about it, and after the company rep has left the studio.”

Probably won’t happen. Games companies are sending out games for ‘review’, buying ad space on websites, or just plain old buying ‘paid previews’ of upcoming KS projects. Nobody is going to turn around the bite the hand that feeds.

Yes there are a few YT channels that are big enough that they can afford to post up honest reviews. Folks like The Dice Tower who grew big before the scene blew up. Now you see the likes of Man vs Meeple coming in, looking great with high production values, and (in my opinion) not worth watching because most if not all the content appears to be little more than paid up content. Just ‘look at the shiny’.

It is a shame that BoW has not tracked the development of systems. We got a couple of play-throughs of Star Wars Legion when it was the hot new kid on the block, but nothing since. We had a play-through of Tanks:Modern Age but sadly missed out on seeing just how unbalanced the game is with certain units (Hind, T64). I might jump in to more Historical gaming but SPQR just looks like a ‘bucket-o-dice’ mess.

 

 

[limburger 21704xp 0]

Long term tracking of games is even more time consuming and I’d argue we can sort of track that through projects on this site.
Granted it’s only the activity of the OTT community and it requires people willing to publish their experiences , but it is a rough indicator  of how a game is evolving/developing. You won’t see people doing stuff for games that suck, except when they canabalize them for parts.

We need to remind ourselves of the best thing this hobby has : we can adapt and improve the games and unlike videogames we aren’t dependent on the existence of publishers, except when we need to bring in new blood (which is kind of impossible if the game is out of print … ).

As for ‘Tanks:modern age’ being unbalanced … LOL.
Did anyone seriously think that a helicopter vs any tank would ever be balanced at that scale ?

You’re using a few tanks against a weapon system that’s designed to kill dozens without taking a single hit. There’s no way such a thing will be ‘balanced’ unless you nerf it at which point the Hind owner complains that he has a paper weight. In a ‘realistic’ scenario that tank wouldn’t even know there was a tank killer hovering nearby until it got hit …
And that’s based on my experience playing simulator games (M1 Tankplatoon and Gunship 2000!).
Does one really need an  in-depth review to extrapolate that ?

it’s like those endless arguments in RPG forums about why wizards would win/lose in against a fighter class where no one appears to consider terrain and circumstances.

There is only so much any review / demo can do. You need to be able to extrapolate your own thoughts from the information given. There’s always situations that reviews will miss and it’s the same reason the designers didn’t catch those errors : too many combinations and not enough time to test them all.

[bigdave 3704xp 0]

Out of curiosity, (and please don’t shoot me for looking at other sites) would anyone take a shine to what Little Wars has been doing with their review system? Different aspects of a game are weighted differently and depending on the crew member you can get radically different scores. I think a similar approach of doing an overall review/play through video with the ability to look at different reviews from different crew members from the site could be an interesting way forward. I’d be tempted to put it as a back-stage only sort of thing, if you want the time-consuming task of in-depth analysis then it probably ought to be behind a pay wall, it would also allow folks to be a bit more forthcoming with the truth instead of being worried about potentially pissing off important allies and sponsors if this kind of thing was put on the front stage.

[limburger 21704xp 0]

The one thing I never ever want to see in a review are scores, because (A) nobody ever agrees with the reviewer (it’s either too high or too low) and(B) makes a good game with a fixable flaw as good as a bad game with a brilliant feature

All that’s needed is a summary of pros and cons. Let the reader decide whether that makes it worth buying or not.

Hiding reviews behind a paywall makes no sense at all, because the ones that could benefit the most may not be a member when they stumble upon it. And there’s nothing worse than discovering a detailed review only to be told you need to pay or else …

I’d also argue that any company willing to blacklist sites/reviewers because they didn’t give their game a positive review is a publisher that’s worth avoiding as they can’t handle honest critique.

It will be interesting to see how GW is going to respond to more in-depth reviews especially given that OTT is selling GW products these days.  I hope GW have learned from their mistakes …

[cypher2009 2001xp 0]

Ok, my two cents into the conversation…

The main thing is – Do you play the game or do you play the rules?
What I mean by this is, do you get a game – SPQR for example – and play the game as written, even trying to find where you can “break” the game due to something not working out properly (playing the rules), or do you use the rules as a base, then when you and your opponent think the rule is a bit odd or doesn’t fit a certain scenario, you house-rule something you both agree on would be more realistic (playing the game). One of the things I keep telling a few of my gaming mates is “it is a game, not an accurate simulation”. The rules are a basic representation, but they can’t cover every eventuality. How many MoH or VC’s would have been won if real life was like some rule sets? Poor old Sabaton’s discography would be pitiful.

There is a company who have made a number of games and have a large following. Personally, I have enjoyed one of their games in regards to rulesets. I love their minis and would consider buying their games just for the minis, but the rules for me are by-and-large, horrible. But it is personal preference.

Don’t forget, there are countless people online who have written rules for different periods and some are free to download, some will cost. A simple google search. Don’t like FoW rules? Google 15mm WW2 rules. They may be nothing you like, but they may be something you stumble across and houserule with your group and come up with something you all like.

I think it is going to be tricky, especially for OTT, to do 100% honest reviews of rulesets… because they are being honest for themselves. They may hate a ruleset… you may get the rules and love it. How many people could be put off buying a game or rules if @warzan or @dignity say “This is a bit naff. It doesn’t work and it doesn’t make sense”. Also, how many companies will start looking at OTT and saying “Yeah, we have a new game out….. but we want this other company (who doesn’t give “honest” reviews) to look at it”. I think it is really tricky and I, for one, take reviews with a pinch of salt (no offense OTT guys). 🙂

[tankkommanderParticipant 6421xp 0]

@limburger “As for ‘Tanks:modern age’ being unbalanced … LOL.
Did anyone seriously think that a helicopter vs any tank would ever be balanced at that scale ?”

I use this as an example of a game that was clearly not very thoroughly tested prior to release. The points costs of the various units are not balanced, and lack consistency across the different nations. Tanks is a ‘beer and pretzels’ type game, but that is not an excuse for such unbalanced units.

[tankkommanderParticipant 6421xp 0]

@cypher2009 “I think it is really tricky and I, for one, take reviews with a pinch of salt (no offense OTT guys). ?”

To be fair I don’t think OTT/BOW claim to do reviews.

[warzanKeymaster 31125xp 0]

Correct we don’t @tankkommander

We actually rely on the crowdsourcing power of the community to provide reviews and their thoughts on games in the games section of the platform https://www.beastsofwar.com/game/

Our community can either use the quick star rating options there to give a bit of general feedback or write more detailed reviews check some out here: https://www.beastsofwar.com/game-review/

🙂

You see this has been on our mind for quite a long time and we do try to give the community as much of a voice as we can if they want to take the time to use it 🙂 as I feel, reviews are most fair and accurate coming from within the community itself who have their ‘boots on the ground’ and we can get more varies perspectives that way.

Encouraging folk to do it is the trick though – so perhaps we can come up with better ways to inform and engage folk 🙂

[lawnor 25939xp 0]

I have no idea how this might be implemented, but if the forum can monitor keyword searches, perhaps if someone mentions, for example, Infinity a lot, the system might be able to send them a PM suggesting they wright a review for it?  This might result in only fans of a game being nudged though, leading to biased reviews?

Another option might be to put shout outs for reviews for certain games on the weekenders at times of interest?  You could do an OTT Pre-Christmas Sale where you get a cumulative 1% off your next order in November/December for every review you write (Or perhaps have written in 2019?) that is over 200 words, uses the star system and has gone 48 hours without being flagged.  Cap it at, say 20-25% discount and you don’t get the kind of discount you might not normally offer, that’s 20-25 reviews per order, and you’re helping people pay for their Christmas presents (possibly just for themselves), and driving sales through your store at the busiest shopping time of the year.

Another option might be OTTer points.  Doing things like reviews earns you points which could be spent to buy unique OTT items (Branded swag, 3d printed gubbins, Justin performing at your kids next birthday party, etc), perhaps only as an add on to an existing order, or with a postage cost we still need to pay.  I don’t want you guys out of pocket on this and I don’t know what your cheap/free swag options are.

I’d suggest setting up a way for people to earn some sort of Trusted Reviewer badge if you haven’t already, but perhaps the Likes system on each review serves the same purpose?

I’ve just had a look at a couple of reviews to remind myself how it works.  No reviews for Bolt Action and only one for AoS?  No one is using the system, are they?  I think I’ve put a couple of quick ones up in the past, but I am no longer sure. I am really going to have to spend some time avoiding work and adding to the database.  I suggest that everyone here who is requesting more reviews from OTT should look in to doing their part and contributing if they have time.  Collectively we have far more experience of more games than the team, and can offer many more viewpoints.

 

As for people writing reviews, I find context is important.  When writing a review please let us know the following

• If you have played the game a lot, or if you’ve had 2 demo games, for example
• If you only play with one or two friends, or if you play “competitively” / in regular situations that involve varied opponents you don’t see every time (IE a small closed meta vs an open meta.  So we can see if any concerns you have are based on only playing against the same army, or if you are playing the rules the same way as everyone else weather you know it or not)
• Pro’s and cons of the game.  Don’t necessarily tell us if we will like it or not, just give us the information to make an informed decision.  We all like different things for different reasons, after all.

There’s probably some more stuff I should add to this.  Perhaps someone better than me could write an article on writing good reviews for OTT, especially if there is any big push for reviews in the future?

[lawnor 25939xp 0]

I’m currently writing what is apparently my first review and here’s some comments for consideration

• In the summary at the top there is no consideration as to weather the game aims to favours narrative play or balanced/competitive play, or somehow manages to pull off both
• What do you mean by writing?  The quality of the fluff or the cleanness of the rules?
• I’ve just finished my review for 40k.  It shows up in my profile, but not under the game.  It’s like the game has been stripped from the review and its floating loose on the server somewhere. I tried to post it again and the same thing has happened.  I don’t know if my review has to be reviewed before it goes live, or if there is a glitch in the system.  Could be there’s more reviews out there than we realise.  Maybe I’m just missing something?

(First attempt)  (Second Attempt)

[rastamannParticipant 2735xp 0]

To be honest, @warzan, I now see OTT’s unboxings but skip ahead on the reviews, mostly because of what has been said in this thread. I don’t believe you guys have enough knowledge of some of these rules to be able to present an accurate review and it sometimes feels like you just going through the motions because it’s a job.

To avoid the trap of always giving positive reviews that are sometimes just being sympathetic to companies [who absolutely deserve that] but still maintain the positivity you guys are known for, I’d suggest doing unboxings like you are doing now, but only reviewing rulesets you guys have tried and actually DO like and are somewhat knowledgeable of.

[mkultra99Participant 814xp 3]

That’s part of the problem.. paying customers accepting poor quality from wargames rules producers. As if, its expected to be shite and the players are expected to use “house rules” and to not expect “balance” or a fully playable game. This is garbage. Maybe some people on this thread have so much time and money on their hands they can afford to spend it on half cocked rubbish and turd polishing for the benefit of a for profit enterprise.. but I can’t. Nor can anyone in my gaming club.

SPQR is a damnable mess, and it’s not just a couple of typos or a misplaced sentence. My group played it multiple times and really wanted to like it, but ultimately decided that the effort and resources it would take to generate all the house rules to plug the holes and prop up the core just wasn’t worth it. So we started playing Mortal Gods.. and we couldn’t be happier. Great game, clear, well thought out and PLAYTESTED rules. I think someone  may have actually played the game before it was put in the box! AND it’s a great value.

AND YES I did expect Tanks:Modern to be balanced. I paid good money for something functional and playable, but it wasn’t. And no, I’m not going to waste valuable hobby time re-writing rules and re-jiggering a points system. Plenty of other great BALANCED games out there.

Which loops back into why the current crop of YT “review” and “open box” videos are worthless. %90 of the people doing these videos haven’t played the game and are just reading the back of the book/box and then throw it on top of the huge pile of company supplied games in clear view behind them. And, No, when you are playing with the writer/producer/employee of the outfit putting out the rules I do not expect a real or truthful examination of the rules… but there should be one to follow.. yet there never is. I suppose this boils down to whether a site/channel is maintaining real journalistic integrity.. or  really is just another outlet for companies to flog their wares. If the latter, fine.. but say so.

Should I expect fair and balanced coverage/reviews/”open box” videos from a site that has banners all over the place for the big wargames companies AND owns and operates a store that sells products for said companies… no.. probably not. But good quality “how to play” and hobby videos are always welcomed.

 

TL:DR; YES it IS time for more critical analysis of rule sets.

 

 

[lawnor 25939xp 0]

I don’t like rules that need to be house rules to work.  No two groups of people are playing the same game so if you attend an event you never know what you are actually going to be playing.  When you’re just playing with your family, house rules are fine enough, but any game intended to have a meta should never be dependent on house rules.

One of the Youtube channels I used to follow was the Game Theorist.  He occasionally got paid to do sponsored videos on rare occasions and knew that meant his content might be seen as biased.  As such he would always tell you up front when one of his videos was sponsored.  Maybe there is some way OTT could do something like that and use it as leverage to get their content funded, but unsponsored and therefore unbiased?  Maybe a sticker “This video content was not influenced by money” or some such, so when they give a big thumbs up everyone knows its genuine and not because Steve from Games Inc is off camera with his cheque book.  I don’t really know what it’s like to be in your position on this one.  I like to think you’re big enough in this niche medium that you can throw your weight around and afford to give negative opinions on a product and the company still has to deal with you, as there’s not really anyone else in your position.  That’s probably not as true as we would like though, and even if it is, big in a small niche, is still probably far too close to the breadline.

I like to think you say positive things about games because you want them to be good and you want us to like them, and not because you’re being paid to.  I believe you try for journalistic integrity.  I also suspect that you don’t have the time to play through everything 50 times before saying if it was good or not, and so give a game the benefit of the doubt and go along with the company rep sometimes.  Perfectly understandable, and realistic, but maybe not the dictionary definition of journalistic integrity.  If you keep us informed as to the context of any opinions or reviews then surely we can make informed decisions?  It would be good to hear your opinions on some of the games further down the line though.  That game you were all pimping last year, have you bothered to play it since?  Did you try it in your down time and form your own opinion?

Here’s a thought.  How about an XLBS weekender every few months (Or a separate special show?  The Quarterly Review?) where you get the whole team together and discuss all the games you’ve had on for the past year and see what your current non-cash-influenced opinions actually are now some time has passed.  Could be an interesting chat.

[civilcourageParticipant 11134xp 2]

I know this isnt directly aimed at SPQR  but i jumped on SPQR (from OTT no less) because the models looked great and i figured at the price i was paying the rules were essentially ‘free’ so i took the risk. But i do see Warlord doing this a lot, very minimal lets plays or run throughs of there new games expecting people to buy blind and i just dont see the sense in this. Im not expecting a water tight tournament ruleset from the off and im quite lenient when it comes to how tight a rules system is but erratas and FAQs mere days after release shows that its not quite ready for a majority of people yet.

Like many of you have alluded to if we stop funding the poor games they will eventually get better. I didnt jump in on sharpe practice until i had watched a few lets plays by the OTT team, then decided i quite enjoyed the mechanics and got my copy. I didnt wade in on cruel seas (i was very tempted) but i waited until the lets plays were out and then decided it wasnt for me.

The unboxings are just that showing you whats in the box, its the lets plays that help me decide on a good game, and i want the producers there showing me the best the game can be (a demo by proxy if you like). I dont rely on either player of the lets plays to tell me its good or bad (as i do find theyre always quite positive) i see if I think its good or bad, if they havent covered enough content i watch another lets play somwhere else.

Like most of us i have plenty of other games to be playing so i can afford to be very selective on which new games i jump in on.

I’m not going to add anything really to what you guys have already said but wanted to chip in. I feel we need to be more careful regarding the games we jump in on and remember the models may be shiny but the rules are just as important (if not more so).

[tankkommanderParticipant 6421xp 0]

I can see that OTT/BOW are in a quandary. If they could be self sufficient in funding 100% from the site users then they could say exactly what they want.

As it is they are beholden to the hobby companies for ad revenue, free shiny to unbox, etc.

I don’t feel that OTT/BOW have crossed the line, but there are plenty of YT channels that are just paid up shills with no integrity.

If someone can work out how to fund proper games journalism, free from the taint of industry influence, then good luck to you.

[Author]

Posts