SIM HQ Review

[Primarchx]

It is the duty of a critic to present an opinion untainted by personal motivations. SimHQ allowed someone with a known conflict with Warfaresims to write a review of the game. It's the ethics of the reviewing organization I'm concerned about, not the review itself.

[thewood1]

Exactly...Herman is Herman...SimHQ should have known better.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: ExMachina

Personally I'd rather read reviews from people with a chip on their shoulder than from somebody enamored with a game or its publisher

But either way, I'd want to be made of aware of those biases, and especially of any conflicts of interest. Since the writer is essentially a direct competitor to Command, that conflict of interest needed to be clearly divulged in the article.

Well I read what Erik had to say about the reviewer and checked out his links before reading the review itself. Was surprised to find a fair and accurate review after all the hoopla. If this Herman fellow was trying to damage his alleged competition he didn't do a very good job considering he offered valid suggestions on where CMANO could be improved.

I agree that SimHQ was obligated to disclose any conflicts of interest. I agree that they should vet their reviewers before accepting and publishing their reviews. What I disagree with is publishing the review and then pulling it completely. If there were conflicts they could have been noted along with the review. Full disclosure. If there were factual errors they could have been corrected. Happens all the time.

In the end SimHQ may have been shown to be incompetent because of this. By pulling the review they have proven themselves to be not only incompetent but also weak.

[thewood1]

Herman basically admits here he is competing against Command. He tries to hide it by saying that certain features were needed, but in the end, Command and H3 (modified) are in the same class and any procurement organization would at least have both on the long list.

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en# ... daKOxG9hoQ

Not sure how the formatting will work out...apologies in advance.

And I tend to agree that the mistake SimHQ made was up front in not even doing the most simple google search on the author's name. Taking it down was not the most elegant solution.

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: mjk428

Personally I'd rather read reviews from people with a chip on their shoulder than from somebody enamored with a game or its publisher. The press should be skeptical.

Personally, I wouldn't want to read a review from either type of person listed above but rather from a neutral party who's prepared to give an honest assessment of the product. People with chips on their shoulder will have as hard a time doing this as fanboys. I also expect any reviewer to announce any biases or conflicts, pro or con, in their piece. To do any less is simply not professional, it's Yelp.

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Rob322

ORIGINAL: mjk428

Personally I'd rather read reviews from people with a chip on their shoulder than from somebody enamored with a game or its publisher. The press should be skeptical.

Personally, I wouldn't want to read a review from either type of person listed above but rather from a neutral party who's prepared to give an honest assessment of the product. People with chips on their shoulder will have as hard a time doing this as fanboys. I also expect any reviewer to announce any biases or conflicts, pro or con, in their piece. To do any less is simply not professional, it's Yelp.

I didn't say it was optimal. Just preferred over fawning reviews in love with the creators or reviewers that have been paid off. Neutral should be the target of course.

Still all reviewers are biased to some degree. In the end it's only one person's opinion not cold hard facts. And I doubt every negative move review by Roger Ebert was really a hidden attempt to drive people to see Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.

[HercMighty]

I am with everyone else here...regardless of the history that should not have been the basis for taking down the review...it was wrong, plain and simple...and any marketing group would have advised much better tactics of dealing with it...

Just very un-proffesional, especially considering that there are legitimate issues that are being quoted as being worked on...you know I don't like most of the things Putin says but do you really think his op-ed piece would have been pulled just because America or our Government didn't like it...just saying...

[kaburke61]

ORIGINAL: HercMighty

I am with everyone else here...regardless of the history that should not have been the basis for taking down the review...it was wrong, plain and simple...and any marketing group would have advised much better tactics of dealing with it...

Just very un-proffesional, especially considering that there are legitimate issues that are being quoted as being worked on...you know I don't like most of the things Putin says but do you really think his op-ed piece would have been pulled just because America or our Government didn't like it...just saying...

NOT everyone else. Some. I have no problem with a possibly biased review being pulled. I haven't heard anything about being forced to remove the review. Just saying.....

[$trummer]

I was the first to draw this review to the devs' attention here and received a very informative response from Erik, who then locked the thread, fearing that it would bring flamers and trolls. The fact that this thread hasn't reignited the blood feud between the reviewer and the devs gives grounds for hope that what was quite obviously a very ugly business is now buried in the past.

As for the review, it was severe but not malicious. It was obviously written by a very knowledgeable, if somewhat obsessive, individual. Most of its complaints about the game were of a rather specialized, granular nature, making the piece less than helpful to anyone but those already very commited to, and knoedgeable about, this genre of gaming. I thought it was, to borrow a phrase, fair but not balanced.

Regarding the ethics of SimHQ's conduct in the matter. I think they must have been taken by surprise to learn of the history between this writer and the developer and shocked by the strength of feelings involved, at least from the devs, who believe, with some justification that Mr. Hum is a threat to their livelihood. As a 15-year member of SimHQ and occasional reviewer, it saddens me to see their ethics questioned here, as I think they meant no harm in either publishing the review or subsequently pulling it. Command has many admirers at SimHQ, myself included.

[thewood1]

That is why you shouldn't take an Joe Blow off the street as a reviewer or author. Otherwise you are just a blog site. I have SimHQ above the simple bloggers for that very reason. Just a simple google of the author's name would have easily and quickly shown that there was significant risk and a potential for conflict of interest.

[Primarchx]

Agreed. Like I said, it's not the review I have a problem with. Herman is entitled to his opinion. But given SimHQ's stature in the community I would think that it behooves them to make sure their content is free of bias or the perception of bias.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

That is why you shouldn't take an Joe Blow off the street as a reviewer or author. Otherwise you are just a blog site. I have SimHQ above the simple bloggers for that very reason. Just a simple google of the author's name would have easily and quickly shown that there was significant risk and a potential for conflict of interest.

[tevans6220]

I read the review and thought it was pretty fair. Certainly nothing over the top or out of the ordinary. The question I have is this: If you take away all the history between Herman, the devs and Matrix, would the review be considered a fair review? Not everybody knows of the history or bad blood. Personally I think Herman's review was spot on and fair. CMANO will be a very good game/simulation but version 1.0 has a few problems with bugs and missing features. All you have to do is read these forums to see that. The review said nothing more than that. I think it's a little disingenuous for Erik/Matrix/Slitherine to cry about it. Herman was the absolute right choice to review this product because of the prior history. Who better to review than your worst critic or rival? The review should not only be put back up at SimHQ but also shown on the Matrix site as well.

[Aurelian]

I didn't get to read it. but I read Magnum's price rant thread.

Confirms my decision to leave that place was the right one.

[Primarchx]

When I read it the first time I didn't even notice it was written by Herman. When I finished I thought, "Man, what a hack job." It's 80% negative, if not more. Warts and all, IMHO, Command is not an 80% negative game.

BTW, I should of known it was Herman when in the ending points it mentions the lack of database editing as being a con TWICE. [:D]

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

I read the review and thought it was pretty fair. Certainly nothing over the top or out of the ordinary. The question I have is this: If you take away all the history between Herman, the devs and Matrix, would the review be considered a fair review? Not everybody knows of the history or bad blood. Personally I think Herman's review was spot on and fair. CMANO will be a very good game/simulation but version 1.0 has a few problems with bugs and missing features. All you have to do is read these forums to see that. The review said nothing more than that. I think it's a little disingenuous for Erik/Matrix/Slitherine to cry about it. Herman was the absolute right choice to review this product because of the prior history. Who better to review than your worst critic or rival? The review should not only be put back up at SimHQ but also shown on the Matrix site as well.

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

Who better to review than your worst critic or rival?

I can't believe that's a serious question. The answer is 'just about anybody' except in the unlikely scenario that that 'worst critic or rival' can actually put that aside and review without bias.

Seriously, the guy plagiarized (i.e 'stole') the Harpoon database those guys had been working on for years. You think it's OK for him to complain in a review about the database in their own game not being editable? [X(] He is the reason, or at least a reason, why it isn't!

[$trummer]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

Who better to review than your worst critic or rival?

I can't believe that's a serious question. The answer is 'just about anybody' except in the unlikely scenario that that 'worst critic or rival' can actually put that aside and review without bias.

Seriously, the guy plagiarized (i.e 'stole') the Harpoon database those guys had been working on for years. You think it's OK for him to complain in a review about the database in their own game not being editable? [X(] He is the reason, or at least a reason, why it isn't!

Now that's rather a compelling argument.

[tevans6220]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

I can't believe that's a serious question. The answer is 'just about anybody' except in the unlikely scenario that that 'worst critic or rival' can actually put that aside and review without bias.

Seriously, the guy plagiarized (i.e 'stole') the Harpoon database those guys had been working on for years. You think it's OK for him to complain in a review about the database in their own game not being editable? [X(] He is the reason, or at least a reason, why it isn't!

It is a serious question. I'm not interested in the past history of Harpoon. Other than what I've read, I don't know what happened so I really have no horse in that race. But I do know that a review was pulled not because of what was said but because of who wrote it. And I'm telling you that even though the review was supposedly written by the "Harpoon Devil" himself, it seemed pretty fair to me. If there was bias, I didn't see it. I'll ask the same question I asked before: If you take away all the past Harpoon history, would the review be considered a fair review? The things Herman pointed out in his review are the same things being brought up and asked about in these forums. Right now this is a good game with a few problems and missing features. That's basically all the review says. Or I should said since it was taken down. I'm really curious to know if Erik/Matrix/Slitherine actually even read the review before throwing a fit about Herman being the one who wrote it.

[thewood1]

In the end it doesn't matter. That is why you are supposed to choose authors very carefully, especially if its a revenue generating site. YOu have to avoid positions just like that one.

As to the review itself, the first thing I thought when I read it it the author seems to be trying to find something to break. Then I went back and looked at the author and knew immediately why.

A fair and balanced review does not just point out the flaws. It also will point out the good things as well. But we can never know because Herman brings exactly that baggage. There is no way to separate his history from the review. The game was built with Herman's history in mind in the fundamental design of the game.

[Kipper]

We have this great product, both in actuality and potential, something we will get years of pleasure out of, the result of years of passion and hard work; and yet why are some of the biggest discussions about a single review and its author, and the price of the game?

[thewood1]

Human nature?