The Arrangement review at Mystery Manor

[BacardiJim]

Mystery Manor is proud to be the first (near as we can tell) AG site to post its review of The Arrangement (http://www.rcttown.com/adventure/reviewarrangement.htm).

[LeChimp]

Thanks for the review. It sounds like I should save the 20$ for a game like Red Dead Revolver or something better and wait for the game to get cheaper.

[Fienepien]

A review that is rather toxic in places. Let's hope there will soon be better, more professional reviews.

[BacardiJim]

A negative review is unprofessional? It is unprofessional to make negative (or even "toxic") comments about those aspects of a good or fair game that are really abysmally bad? If you haven't played the game yet, then how do you know that it doesn't deserve a few "toxic" comments? Such comments might, in fact, be completely warranted and professional. NOT making them or sugar-coating what are some really serious flaws because I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings... now that would be unprofessional.

[Fienepien]

Of course serious flaws should be pointed out. In a professional, non-toxic way.

[BacardiJim]

Fine. Let's see one of your reviews of a bad game where you are honest to the consumer without saying anything harsh about the game. :rolleyes:

[Stinger]

There is a factual error in your review that you may want to correct, Jim; I confirmed with Michael Clark this morning that Got Game will be selling the game for $20 rather than the $30 they are showing on their webpage. Not that there's any way you could have known that, but I thought you'd want to know.

[Stinger]

OK, I'm an idiot, I just saw the very end of your review. My bad. self:pan:

[Draco2.5]

Critical bastards. :(

[Fienepien]

Fine. Let's see one of your reviews of a bad game where you are honest to the consumer without saying anything harsh about the game. :rolleyes:

Are you saying consumers are not allowed to have a negative opinion of a product unless they make a better one themselves? Shouldn't you, by the same token, be able to produce a better game before you're allowed to criticize other people's games?

And of course it's not so much what you say, it's the way you say it.
I'll confine myself to just one example. As a consumer, as a reader, I'm not at all interested in your "travails" to get a copy of the game in order to review it. Worse, you *use* that for effect, to emphasize the shortness of the game. Those two things have nothing to do with each other.

[Len Green]

I was one of the several beta-testers for The Arrangement.

AFAIK, the price was never intended to exceed US$19.99.
I don't know anything about the Got-Game 'error' or whatever it is !

IIRC, many or all of your criticisms of the game are partially or totally justified.
However, you mention directly or indirectly not once but four times in your review, that the game does not justify an outlay of US$29.99. If this is actually to be the case, I would agree with you !

However, only in a footnote [ ED.: ] at the end of the review and as a sort of afterthought, is it mentioned that the "most probable price" will be (as intended) 'only' US$19.99 ... This has been confirmed by Stinger, and Mike himself.
Hence IMHO some the possible shortness and flaws should be taken into consideration.


I feel that this is both unfair to Michael Clark and an unwarranted slap in the face for other potential Indie Developers.

[Erwin_Br]

I don't understand why it's necessary to mention the trouble you had to acquire a review copy. I mean, is this useful information for the reader? Also, it affects the objectivity of the review too. I'm not saying you were influenced by this incident when judging the game, but readers might get the feeling you did.

I don't have much to complain about the overall review, though. :) Seems very fair to me, though I haven't played the game myself.

--Erwin

[Fienepien]

I don't understand why it's necessary to mention the trouble you had to acquire a review copy. I mean, is this useful information for the reader? Also, it affects the objectivity of the review too. I'm not saying you were influenced by this incident when judging the game, but readers might get the feeling you did.


Yes. Not to mention the highly toxic and unbalanced paragraph about the voice acting. All that stuff about being burnt etcetera is of no interest to the reader.

[Kolorabi]

Yes. Not to mention the highly toxic and unbalanced paragraph about the voice acting. All that stuff about being burnt etcetera is of no interest to the reader.If the voice acting sucks, the reviewer should say so. The reviewer's only obligation is to give his view of the game, and if he don't do that because he is afraid of offending the developers or publishers, the review becomes useless.

I also don't see the problem with the "burnt at the stake"-comment. Good reviews often contain such personal comments, as it tends to make them more interesting to read.

[Fienepien]

I also don't see the problem with the "burnt at the stake"-comment. Good reviews often contain such personal comments, as it tends to make them more interesting to read.

What's so interesting about that particular comment? I don't even want to know who he is talking about and I bet I'm not the only one. It doesn't add anything to his opinion of the voice acting.

I'm not looking for excitement in a review. I want solid info and the personal gaming experience of the reviewer. If a reviewer has to include toxic personal comments and backstabbing to make his article more "interesting", he is not a good reviewer in MY book.

[Erwin_Br]

I also don't see the problem with the "burnt at the stake"-comment. Good reviews often contain such personal comments, as it tends to make them more interesting to read.

'Personal comments' is quite a wide concept, don't you think? I mean, talking about your horrible bowel movement when you played the game is a personal comment too. But it's not important for the reader, and I really don't want to know.

Generally, I don't mind personal comments at all, if it's relevant. I don't want to hammer on this too much, because it's not that important and I like the rest of the review, but I feel like that first piece of information portraits the reviewer as biased. Even though he isn't.

--Erwin

[BacardiJim]

Erwin: The comment about how long it took me to get the game was included to act as a counterpoint to my comment immediately afterward about the shortness of the game itself. It's a literary device known as "irony." I'm sorry if you didn't "get" it.


However, I do appreciate your confidence that the review itself was unbiased and fair. Thank you.

[Len Green]

In continuation of my previous post ...............
Got_Games have confirmed the US$19.99 price for The Arrangement ...
http://www.justadventure.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=AdvGameDiscuss;action=display;num=1 086452381;start=0#11

IMHO, in view of the over frequent stressing of the price/"value" ratio in the review would be fair & warranted !!

[BacardiJim]

Len: Since you insist on posting your negativity about the review on every forum, I guess I will have to follow around explaining on every forum. The original review had an editorial addendum added at the end within hours after its publication, and within minutes of Michael Clark's notification that the price might be other than what was posted at the main page for The Arrangement at the Got Game website.


Official verification of their error didn't come from Got Game until yesterday. We already had a revision ready to go. However there were other issues including the spectre of censorship and corporate manipulation (and the appearance of censorship and corporate manipulation) that had to be weighed and ironed out to everyone's satisfaction before Mystery Manor ownership was willing to post such a revision.

I hope this explains everything to your satisfaction.

[Len Green]

Len: Since you insist on posting your negativity about the review on every forum, I guess I will have to follow around explaining on every forum.

Then I guess you will have to !!!
GameBoomers next !
When a Reviewer criticizes (several times) a game for faulty reasons, he/she should be prepared for refutation.
I am aware of more than one game which has 'sunk' due to a totally undeserved and vicious criticism.
The least you could do is to publicly apologize to the Developer.

[BacardiJim]

The game isn't worth $20 either. The criticism was completely justified. It is the publisher who owes the apology for posting the price incorrectly on the game's main webpage. Recognizing this, Got Game has apologized.

I stand by the review.

[crabapple]

Official verification of their error didn't come from Got Game until yesterday. We already had a revision ready to go. However there were other issues including the spectre of censorship and corporate manipulation (and the appearance of censorship and corporate manipulation) that had to be weighed and ironed out to everyone's satisfaction before Mystery Manor ownership was willing to post such a revision.


What??? :pan:

What's all this gobbledygook about "the spectre of censorship and corporate manipulation" (or worse yet, the "appearance" of such) got to do with correcting misinformation about a price in a game review?

[BacardiJim]

What??? :pan:

What's all this gobbledygook about "the spectre of censorship and corporate manipulation" (or worse yet, the "appearance" of such) got to do with correcting misinformation about a price in a game review?Because many people had seen the original version of the review and the new version is somewhat softer. (The new passage reads "The answer is, sadly, 'Not really.'" where it used to say "The answer is a resounding NO WAY!")

Both Got Game and a few people like Len asked that the body (the actual content and thrust) of the review (and not just the price) be changed to reflect the actual price instead of the $30 price quoted in the original version. This was not a quick and easy matter for us at Mystery Manor to come to agreement on. Essentially, we were being asked to ease up on the game because Got Game made a mistake on the listed price. Thus the censorship/corporate manipulation issues.

Make sense?

[crabapple]

So you consider editing to take an unintentional clerical error into account to be in the same category as censorship and corporate manipulation? Into hyperbole are we?

[BacardiJim]

We considered that being asked to change the content and tone of the review at Got Game's request to border on that, yes. And we considered that actually doing so might appear as such to some people as well.


Not everyone can see things as clearly and logically as you do, crabapple. Public perception is a tricky thing, and while I know a lot of people may not like me personally, I have a reputation for frank honesty and integrity in my dealings with game companies. We didn't want that compromised in any way.

[Fickfack]

So you consider editing to take an unintentional clerical error into account to be in the same category as censorship and corporate manipulation? Into hyperbole are we?
The issue isn't that GotGame's attempt to correct the mistake is a form of censorship. The issue is that, to the reader, it appears that BJ has given into corporate demands to change one of his reviews. Besides, the clerical error was GotGame's.
@ Len: He fixed it. Seems to me it's a bit over the top to deliberately set out to slag him on every forum you can find.

[BacardiJim]

Thanks, Fickfack. I knew you would understand. ;)

[BacardiJim]

I am sure that if Evan or Marek decided to weigh in, they'd tell you that the decision to revise an already-published review, for ANY reason, but particularly at the request of the publisher or designer, is not an easy one or one to be taken lightly or rushed into.

[Fienepien]

The issue is that, to the reader, it appears that BJ has given into corporate demands to change one of his reviews.

Well, I am a reader and until BJ told us about it I had no idea that Got Game had requested he change the review and apologized for putting up the wrong price. Was this a publicly posted request annex apology? Please tell me where can I find it?

[Fienepien]

I am sure that if Evan or Marek decided to weigh in...

It is YOUR baby!

[crabapple]

The issue isn't that GotGame's attempt to correct the mistake is a form of censorship. The issue is that, to the reader, it appears that BJ has given into corporate demands to change one of his reviews.


Unless the reader had read both the before and after versions, and had a very good memory, I doubt they'd see much difference in the review. The revision appears to me to be solely to correct the error of the price. At least that's what the editorial note seems to suggest. Having seen the before and after versions, and with my imperfect memory of what it was like before, I don't think the review is any less "honest" now than it was before.


Besides, the clerical error was GotGame's.


An error is an error. If I wrote a review with an error in it, I'd want it corrected as soon as possible. Apparently there is some behind-the-scenes stuff, like the "tone" of GotGame's message, that most people on this board can only guess at - and that is what led to Bacardi Jim's cry of "censorship and corporate manipulation." But from where I was sitting it came out of nowhere and seemed needlessly reactionary - and odd coming from Bacardi Jim.

[BacardiJim]

Apparently there is some behind-the-scenes stuff, like the "tone" of GotGame's message, that most people on this board can only guess at - and that is what led to Bacardi Jim's cry of "censorship and corporate manipulation."
I did try to explain to Len politely that there were factors at work of which he was unaware. It didn't stop him from his campaign of poison. *shrug*

[Martin Gantefoehr]

The issue isn't that GotGame's attempt to correct the mistake is a form of censorship. The issue is that, to the reader, it appears that BJ has given into corporate demands to change one of his reviews. Besides, the clerical error was GotGame's.

Well, correcting a price tag isn't a big deal, and wouldn't be a problem here, if it wasn't that the whole review leans heavily on the price issue. That's why Got Game's error (and its correction) weakens it in a central point.

I guess Got Game simply has to live with the fact that the original review bashed the game mainly because of price. And Jim has to live with the fact that without the price issue being that prominent, his review has lost relevance.

BTW, to return to the thread topic (The Arrangement, I think): Thumbs up to Michael Clark for actually creating something, and thumbs up to Got Game for giving one-man indies a chance. :)

Martin/HoT

[LauraMac]

Well said Martin!

As for GotGames, I have known them for a number of years now and doubt seriously they would have the time or the inclination to apply preassure to a reviewer, regardless of their personalized take on a game. :rolleyes:

Ironic it ain't it :7

[Stinger]

I am sure that if Evan or Marek decided to weigh in, they'd tell you that the decision to revise an already-published review, for ANY reason, but particularly at the request of the publisher or designer, is not an easy one or one to be taken lightly or rushed into.

Not one I've ever accomodated, either. Even when there is a factual error made and the publisher or developer requests a change (which has happened with the BS3 and CSI2 reviews as well as the Myst 4 preview...though I was justified in all three errors :shifty: ), I never modify the original article; I only add a bold note after my original text to indicate the change. It's much more honest that way.

In any case, I think Jim's taken enough heat on the AG forums for a non-AG review. I'm sure Jim will be willing to continue the discussion further on the Mystery Manor forums if anyone chooses to take it up there, but he doesn't need to feel like he's running around defending himself across the Internet. Thus I am locking this topic.