Guest Captain Foobar Posted May 1, 2000 Share Posted May 1, 2000 I am of the opinion that this conversation needs to be taken offline. I dont believe any good can come out of working us up into a lather over this. It is disappointing to see this kind of preview, but I personally was very impressed with the quickness of the response, after The Wargamer started geting emails from us. Anyone reading this PLEEEEEASE dont flame them anymore, just let it go. We need a whole lot of good will out there to get the word out. You can see in the post up there that they have apologised for their mistakes. (damn , i used to be a massive troublemaker, and now I've turned into a total wuss ) "Good friends come and go, but the enemies you make, last forever" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All American Posted May 1, 2000 Share Posted May 1, 2000 I know this has nothing to do with anything, but I just wanted to say that I can't believe I actually saw one of words on my vocabulary list for English was actually used by someone, especially one as archaic as behoove. All American Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PvK Posted May 1, 2000 Share Posted May 1, 2000 Fionn, wow. I won't sink to the level of that mean email you just wrote, but go take a look at the current version of the preview. Is there anything inaccurate in it? If so, let me know and I'll gladly add a note explaining the mistake. The previewer very clearly explains his level of experience with WW2 games. I simply disagree with you and Mr. Grammont that a non-grognard shouldn't be allowed to publish their experience with the game. Most gamers are non-grognards, so I feel this view is valuable. Moreover, it seems to me that the inaccuracies in the article are all simple, minor, and honest representations of the writer's experience and knowledge. So we corrected and clarified them. So what's your problem, other than that you have a long grudge list? PvK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted May 1, 2000 Share Posted May 1, 2000 Since it appears that ex staff members get to post on this... Look they admitted they made some error, FIXED them (get any other mag to do that, it NORMALLy does not happen I know I do PR for a part time living), and then pointed out that the main reason this happened was because their primary PREVIEWER ducked out. To answer Moon they do NOT pay reviewers. In fact even the senior staff members makes next to nothing. The Wargamer is staffed by VOLUNTEER folks who do this because they like Wargaming, that's it. When I was News Editor there we were the FIRST gaming site to cover CM in any way and publishign Fionn's and Moon's peices on the game with TGN and other sites were doing nothing. As to why they don't have a CM section. Well their CM moderator bowed out do to personal issues. Of course one of the reasons it took them so long to put up a section was becuase BTS initially would not send out a Beta copy to then while allowing TGN to have on for CMHQ. But hey that is all in the past, and no skin off my nose to say the least. As far as TGN/The Wargamer relations that is an error too. The leaders of both sites have been working lately for a closer relationship in many ways including giving The Wargamer one of the select exclusive spots for downloading SP:WAW. Also Fionn does not mention that the reason Keith got to read his preview first was because it was a "grognard" review and we wanted to give publishers a chance to look at them before we publish. Afterall Talonsoft threatened to sue TW until it closed last time we published one without consulting them first. This was a simple misunderstanding that has been aggravated by Steve's post and Fionn digging up old dirt that should be left alone (remember we all have reasons for not seeing the leave from The Wargamer in the same light). This could have been solved by a simple email to the editor at The Wargamer asking why this or this wasn't done correctly, instead of airing out dirty laundyry. THAT is more unproffesional than a supposed slight in this review. If I had a problemw itha preview they published at Shrapnel I certaintly would have emailed the editor's at The Wargamer first before attacking them over a MINOR problem. So kiddies why don't we drop this before we get to dredge up problems from the past that have NOTHING to do with what is happenning today. I do know that the problems that caused this preview to be backlogged HAVE been fixed and there is almost no backlog on preview/reviews now. Again this is not a Shrapnel or The Wargamer wanted or needed post. In fact I wouldn't have posted at all if certain individuals had kept this on a civil and PROFESSIONAl level. But I will still buy CM no matter what . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted May 1, 2000 Share Posted May 1, 2000 Double... [This message has been edited by Richard (edited 04-30-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted May 1, 2000 Share Posted May 1, 2000 I have to agree with Foobar here, to continue bashing these guys isn't doing anything good for CM I realize that the damage is done and it should have never happened, but they have already apologized profusely and ammended the article which is more than I expected to happen. Two representatives of Wargamer have already been here and made statements, I am not defending them but I am thinking of the future for CM. If the community continues to slam them, why would they attempt to show CM in a good light later? To continue to slam them will just bring about negativity towards CM which is exactly what we DON't want ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 1, 2000 Share Posted May 1, 2000 Well, I agree with Foobar as well. Problem is that I hear a lot of back peddling and not a whole lot of taking responsibility nor hardly any understanding as to why we are ticked off. I have also not seen an appology. I fail to see why we shouldn't be upset with the original preview. So far I haven't said one word about being upset with the response OTHER than to say that it clearly underscores why we should be upset in the first place. Generally publications don't have editors scrambling to make changes on a Sunday for small errors. That preview NEVER should have gone up online. No matter how "fair" it might have been to the Demo, it was NOT fair to what it is now. SEVEN months later. Simple math would should have told you to scrap the preview or at LEAST run it by us first. Publications do this all the time, so the lack of respect shown to us and our work is hard to swallow without expressing outrage. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts