Gil R.
Posts: 10821
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tevans6220
Erik
I think you miss two points I tried to make. First Matrix and WCS should have contacted Trotter privately. While it's nice to invite him and give him the freedom to respond here on these forums he may feel apprehensive about doing so. I know I would especially after allowing discussion on said review. By responding here now, he's open to attacks from FOF fans who disagree with him. Secondly even though Trotter may be a "professional" reviewer his opinions don't mean anymore than yours or mine. The only difference is he got paid. Anybody who has played the game and stated their likes and dislikes can be considered a reviewer.
One other thing I think needs further clarification. As I said previously it seems as though anytime FOF comes under any criticism, deserved or undeserved, it seems as though Matrix and WCS are there attempting to put out the fire. One example I can give was the criticism of FOF upon initial release. Anywhere it was discussed Matrix or WCS was there discussing and defending. As publisher and developer it's nice to believe and push your product but with accolades also comes criticism. It seems as though somebody has a problem with criticism. Just recently in a discussion on the AGEOD forums comparing both games someone jokingly stated that people should watch with the criticism of FOF lest they bring the Matrix fanatics to the forum. Maybe they meant FOF players but I took it to mean Gil and maybe even you. I drew that conclusion from seeing other discussions on the Wargamer and I believe even the Gamesquad forums where you and Gil were right there due to critcism of FOF. Let me state again that believing in your product is a great thing but the circling of the wagons at the least bit of criticism seems a bit childish. Your company makes great games that speak for themselves. There's no need to get defensive because of one bad or misinformed review.
tevans6220,
Erik already responded to your posts and said many of the things I would have, but I feel the need to respond. In order:
1) In hindsight, which is, of course, 20-20, maybe privately e-mailing Bill Trotter and/or the Wargamer's editors privately might have been the better course of action. But you have to remember, this was a review that was already being widely read, and with each additional reader FOF's reputation was being further damaged. This wasn't a situation that presented a lot of time to send a message and wait hopefully for a favorable response.
2) I STRONGLY disagree with your comment that "Anybody who has played the game and stated their likes and dislikes can be considered a reviewer" (and suspect most others would as well). You're essentially redefining the word "reviewer" in a way that most people would never intend. (It sort of reminds me of Bill Clinton redefining "sex.")
3) More importantly, your impression of my rapid-response policy to defend FOF is understandable but not entirely correct (i.e., you're seeing a pattern that doesn't really exist, but I can see why you would think it does). I have never, ever stepped in to respond to mere criticism of the game on other forums -- the only time I do so is when people have written mistaken or misleading comments about the game, which I then attempt to correct. I firmly believe that everyone who has bought the game has every right to say whatever they want about it, and much as I might not like some of the things I've read, I always let those comments pass unless they are objectively wrong (not subjectively!). I do this because negative comments can greatly impact sales, and frankly, I'll be damned if we lose sales because of misinformation: if people don't want to buy the game because they have read about specific features (or the lack of features) that concern them, that's absolutely fine and comes with the territory, but it's not fine for people to be led to conclude that FOF's not the game for them because someone has written inaccurately about it. So that's my policy: don't respond to subjective criticism, but do respond to factually incorrect criticisms or those that show some lack of understanding of how the game works.
Regarding specific forums, no one at Western Civilization Software is registered at the AGEOD forum, and much as I might have liked to respond to some of the criticisms I've seen, I would never trespass on their forum to promote FOF (just as Korrigan and Pocus, with whom we at WCS have a cordial relationship, would never appear here and do that). As for Gamesquad, I just went and checked, and found that I've posted there four times, all soon after the game came out: three posts were responding to questions about the game that were addressed to me, but the post you appear to remember was responding to one person's statement that he had read somewhere (note: he had never played FOF) that the game has numerous map errors and also has "too much economics/politics and not enough fighting," so I responded to these demonstrably false statements.
I should also add that my policy when I see something that needs setting straight is first to see if any players do so first. But if after a period of time no one has responded, then I'll do so. But again, I do not respond to every criticism, only those that unfairly damage the game's reputation. I hope you realize that this is not a matter of being overly sensitive, but of trying to defend a project on which I and others worked for more than a year, and for which we don't see that much compensation as it is.
< Message edited by Gil R. -- 6/24/2007 8:59:17 AM >
|
Printable Version
Wargamer Notes from Mr. Trotter on FoF - 
From the WARGAMER WEBSITE REVIEW on AGEOD AACW, Mt. William Trotter sez about Forge of Freedom: "Although many reviewers really wanted to embrace it, and invested large amounts of time trying to do so, the consensus about the most recent grand-scale Civil War title, Forge of Freedom, seems to have been just that; it was another "noble failure." And the primary reason was because the emotional power of the subject – that old tingle-down-the-spine factor – as cumulatively suffocated by a mass of detail so daunting that absorbing all its well-intentioned pedantry left most players too numb to give a damn WHO won the Battle of Bumbershoot, Tennessee, once they reached the combat stage...." 
RE: Wargamer Notes from Mr. Trotter on FoF - 
RE: Wargamer Notes from Mr. Trotter on FoF - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread