Game Reviewing After Manual Writing - A No-No?
Journalistic vested interest is s touchy subject – more so in business circles than gaming ones, mostly, but it still resonates pretty strongly. In 1996, then-CGW columnist Martin Cirulis called outed author of PC Gamer’s review of PC title Ascendency as the author of the game’s strategy guide, too, noting that he probably had a vested interest in the game selling more copies, so the guide would also fare better in stores. While most would question whether that might really be the case, it’s undoubtedly an instance where the conflict of interest should have been declared.
Now, writes Tom Chick, he’s criticised one of the co-writers of the manual for Galactic Civilizations 2 for also reviewing, in rather an uncomplimentary light, Sword of the Stars on 1up.com. But is it really the same issue? Or is it complicated, and invalidated, by the fact that Cirulis is Sword of the Stars’ developer?
Who better to answer those questions than Chick himself, who just happens to be the author of GalCiv2’s manual, and said review? “Yes, I wrote the manual for Galactic Civilizations 2,” he says. “No, it didn’t affect my opinion on Sword of the Stars, a game I honestly dislike. I freely grant that I have a conflict of interest doing any writing on the subject of Stardock’s games, but I and my editors don’t think it should prevent me from writing about strategy games, sci-fi or otherwise.”
The last word rests pretty capably in the hands of CGW editor-in-chief Jeff Green. “The notion that there is a "conflict of interest" here is ludicrous,” he notes. “And I'm surprised that someone as magazine savvy as Martin would resort to such a lame tactic just because he didn't get the review he was hoping for.” Ouch.
[edited by alistairw]
Comments
It's pretty bloody obvious that Tom Chick was the wrong person to write the review of Sword of the Stars. As someone involved in the GalCivs main competitor in the genre, he should have left the review to someone else.
Imagine if someone involved in the creation of the GTA-series were to review a competing title such as Saints Row in a major publication, and then proceed to give it a much lower rating than the majority of the press and players believe the game deserved. That's pretty much what happened here, except instead of two well-known games, we have two niche-titles.
I don't know if Tom Chick let his views on GalCiv 2 cloud his judgement of Sword of the Stars, but I do know it was very unprofessional of him to handle this particular review. And I also know that Sword of the Stars is a much better game than he claims in his review.
Posted by: fluffy bunny | October 4, 2006 7:28 AM
"As someone involved in the GalCivs main competitor in the genre, he should have left the review to someone else"
Argh, I meant "in the creation of Sword of the Stars main competitor"...
Anyway, I'm a bit surprised about the one-sided way this issue was handled here at GSW. :-/
Posted by: fluffy bunny | October 4, 2006 7:31 AM
I think GSW is simply being reasonable...
The review was fair and we have no reason (besides a very rude suspicion) to believe that Mr. Chick was biased. I would even go as far as saying, that he knows the genre much better than most other reviewers.
Anyway. I wouldn't mind having Sid Meier review strategy games either...
Posted by: gnome | October 4, 2006 9:53 AM
would have been better if it was Jack Chick...
Posted by: Ryan in exile | October 4, 2006 10:45 AM
Except Tom Chick wasn't involved in the creation of GalCiv2. He wrote the manual for a one-time flat fee with no ties to GalCiv2's financial performance. Writing the manual simply means that he can explain game mechanics to someone unfamiliar with the game.
If Tom was an actual employee of Stardock and on the GalCiv2 dev team, there would be conflict, but since all he did was explain that Control-S means to save the game, and he got paid once to do that, there isn't conflict.
Posted by: Thierry Nguyen | October 4, 2006 10:57 AM
As long as these sorts of relationships are stated up front I have no problem with this sort of thing. They are plenty of other reviews and the opinion of the gaming community.
I think a game review payola scandal would be funny :)
Posted by: Corey Holcomb-Hockin | October 4, 2006 11:42 AM
That's a tenuous enough relationship that it'd pretty much disqualify anyone from reviewing games.
Posted by: mister slim | October 5, 2006 2:50 PM
Forget the conflict-of-interest debate...DID THE MAN MAKE VALID POINTS?
Frankly, his position--or even a real conflict-of-interest position--doesn't change the validity of his stating, "I think this sucks and here's why."
His experience in the industry gives his opinions more credence; however, they are still another man's opinion and we should form our own.
I bought the game and I can definitely say his review is very accurate. It's an _awesome_ concept and approach, but the implementation needs refining.
The question for everyone is, "Do you like the game enough to suffer through its obstacles/shortcomings/annoyances?"
And that is the point the narcissist at Kerberos needs to take to heart: a successful game _doesn't have_ any obstacles to its playability.
I _want_ to like this game, but the interface does get frustrating and, so far, the AI isn't a challenge at all (could be a fluke scenario, too early to tell). I'm still playing it with a fresh perspective to have the experience the developers intended. (i.e. DO NOT play this like it's just another space 4X game!)
Posted by: Rolo | December 4, 2006 6:00 PM