SIM HQ Review

[$trummer]

ORIGINAL: 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?

I agree, it's not fair to the devs. I thinnk this thread should be locked.

[Kipper]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Human nature?

That is a depressing thought.

[SilentHunter]

I read the review, I have no history with either side or parties except owning this game. My view is the review did have some valid points but also had an agenda. Some items which were said to be broken either were mistakenly reported so or the reviewer did not have the knowledge at hand to know better. I remember seeing a post somewhere the DEVS here acknowledge the game has some issues and are working to resolve them.

Pulling the review was the right thing to do but I think devs you should publish a letter and ask SIMHQ to pin it with your answers regarding the issues addressed in the review. While you don't agree with the reviewer or the review, you do acknowledge there are issues and your doing xx to resolve these so to all our customers and potential customers we wanted to address these concerns for you in a statement.u .... yadadaddada or you could just remain silent

[Pii]

ORIGINAL: ExMachina

At the end of the day the released game is a very bug ridden product, you only have to look at the page after page of problems in this forum.

Honestly, this is one of the most bug-free PC games I've ever purchased--for a v1.00 it's remarkably stable.

Then you must not buy many games. "Remarkably Stable"? hardly, even the new patch claimed to have fixed several lock up non responding bugs. I have personally had it lock up on 9 out of 10 games I've tried playing.

I read the review and thought it was spot on. I wonder what you will all say when a new review comes out and says the same or worse?

[Pii]

ORIGINAL: 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.

My guess would be that they picked someone with experience and a deep understanding of the genre.

[Pii]

ORIGINAL: 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.

That because you are the what might be termed a fan boy of this genre (not a put own just a fact) and your opinions are just ,if not more so, as bias as Herman's. Please point out what you think wasn't true or a "hack job" in the review?

[kaburke61]

Pii

That because you are the what might be termed a fan boy of this genre (not a put own just a fact) and your opinions are just ,if not more so, as bias as Herman's. Please point out what you think wasn't true or a "hack job" in the review?

Man, what is your agenda here Pii? First you complain in pages and pages about how ridiculous the pricing scheme is and how matrix is killing the industry, then you purchase anyway (I guess), and now you are bashing the game, and any kind of opposite opinion. The hypocrisy you show towards the opposing viewpoints (for instance the Herman review) is comical.

[ExMachina]

Man, what is your agenda here Pii?

Herman? [X(]

[Primarchx]

I didn't write a review for SimHQ nor was I asked to and I don't need to go point by point through anything. My impression was that the review spent an inordinate amount of time criticizing the game while providing little and faint praise for what's been done right. That's my opinion.

ORIGINAL: Pii

ORIGINAL: 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.

That because you are the what might be termed a fan boy of this genre (not a put own just a fact) and your opinions are just ,if not more so, as bias as Herman's. Please point out what you think wasn't true or a "hack job" in the review?

[tevans6220]

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

I didn't write a review for SimHQ nor was I asked to and I don't need to go point by point through anything. My impression was that the review spent an inordinate amount of time criticizing the game while providing little and faint praise for what's been done right. That's my opinion.

That's exactly what I want a review to do. I don't need or want a review that tries to blow sunshine up my butt trying to convince me to buy. That's a job for the publisher/devs. When I read a review I want to know about all the flaws, problems and missing features. Like it or not, Herman's review did just that. To a person not well versed in Harpoon history, with no bias or agenda the review gave a fair assessment of the current state of the game. That's not saying that the game is bad. It has some bugs and is missing some useful features (map autoscroll for one)but the problems are being addressed. Seems to me if there is any bias at all it lies with the people throwing a fit about Herman writing the review more than the actual review itself.

[thewood1]

Again...it's not necessarily the review, but the disclosure of who wrote it. If Sunburn had written it without disclosing his relationship to Command development team, the same thing should have happened.

Sorry for using you as an example.

[Primarchx]

I can appreciate that. To each their own.

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

I didn't write a review for SimHQ nor was I asked to and I don't need to go point by point through anything. My impression was that the review spent an inordinate amount of time criticizing the game while providing little and faint praise for what's been done right. That's my opinion.

That's exactly what I want a review to do. I don't need or want a review that tries to blow sunshine up my butt trying to convince me to buy. That's a job for the publisher/devs. When I read a review I want to know about all the flaws, problems and missing features. Like it or not, Herman's review did just that. To a person not well versed in Harpoon history, with no bias or agenda the review gave a fair assessment of the current state of the game. That's not saying that the game is bad. It has some bugs and is missing some useful features (map autoscroll for one)but the problems are being addressed. Seems to me if there is any bias at all it lies with the people throwing a fit about Herman writing the review more than the actual review itself.

[tevans6220]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Again...it's not necessarily the review, but the disclosure of who wrote it. If Sunburn had written it without disclosing his relationship to Command development team, the same thing should have happened.

Sorry for using you as an example.

So basically you don't object to or disagree with the review itself. Your only problem is with the person who wrote it. In other words a fair review by any other reviewer but a hack job since it came from Herman given past Harpoon history. Not everybody knows of that history or even cares. It doesn't matter who wrote the review. It's either fair or it isn't. I believe the review gave a pretty fair assessment of the current state of the game. As with all version 1.0 software there are problems and those problems are being addressed by the devs. The review wasn't as biased as some of it's readers.

[HercMighty]

The whole point is how it was handled...irregardless of the past, and I have seen most of it....just taking down the review was not the way to go...especially people who did see commented that they agree with parts of it, and Matrix has said they are working on issues including those that were written in the review...sorry, but Harpoon has been plagued by childish actions on both sides, if they just ignored it, do what they are doing, the whole review would have blown over, we would all have a better game, and for those of us who have seen these antics for years would have thought maybe somebody has finally grown up...but people are really sensitive to censorship and that is what Matrix and SimHQ have participated in with the removal of the article...

[Primarchx]

I wouldn't say it's a fair review because, to my recollection it went very far to recount the negatives and hardly touched the positives. That's not a fair review. Did Herman have some valid observations? In some cases, sure. But I feel he overstated many of them while understating many of the outstanding features of the game. As I said, the review was 80% negative and Command is a better game than that.

Frankly, it amazes me that some people don't see such a blatant conflict of interest as being a red flag to many here.

[wombat778]

I agree with thewood on this. IMHO, the fairness of the review itself is irrelevant. I believe that SimHQ should not have published a review from someone with a clear personal connection/conflict with the subject of the review without disclosing that conflict. I don't care if the review was the negative, neutral or amazingly positive. It is simply bad journalistic ethics to have not disclosed the relationship.

Just for reference, the Society of Journalistic Ethics says "Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived....— Disclose unavoidable conflicts." (http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp). NPR Ethics handbook says "It’s not always easy to detect when something we have a personal or professional stake in might conflict — or appear to conflict — with our duty to report to the public the fullest truth we can. Conflicts of interest come in many shapes — financial holdings, romantic relationships, family ties, book deals, speaking engagements, and others....In minor cases, we might satisfy an apparent conflict by prominently disclosing it, and perhaps explaining to the public why it doesn’t compromise our work. When presented with more significant conflicts that might affect our ongoing work, our best response is to avoid them. But some conflicts are unavoidable, and may require us to recuse ourselves from certain coverage." (http://ethics.npr.org/category/e-independence/).

[tevans6220]

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

I wouldn't say it's a fair review because, to my recollection it went very far to recount the negatives and hardly touched the positives. That's not a fair review. Did Herman have some valid observations? In some cases, sure. But I feel he overstated many of them while understating many of the outstanding features of the game. As I said, the review was 80% negative and Command is a better game than that.

Frankly, it amazes me that some people don't see such a blatant conflict of interest as being a red flag to many here.

As I said before, it's not up to the reviewer to convince me to buy. That job belongs to the publisher/devs. Reviews don't have to be fair or balanced. And given Matrix' habit of not providing demos, I would rather have a review that lists all the problems instead of one telling me how great a product is. The problem here with most is not the message. It's the messenger. I don't see a huge conflict of interest. The review was either truthful and factual or it wasn't. When I personally experience some of the same things written about in the review, I know it to be factual and truthful. I also know Herman wasn't a shill out to give Matrix an outstanding review just so a website could gain some or more of Matrix advertising dollars. Pulling that review makes it seem just that way though.

[tevans6220]

ORIGINAL: HercMighty

The whole point is how it was handled...irregardless of the past, and I have seen most of it....just taking down the review was not the way to go...especially people who did see commented that they agree with parts of it, and Matrix has said they are working on issues including those that were written in the review...sorry, but Harpoon has been plagued by childish actions on both sides, if they just ignored it, do what they are doing, the whole review would have blown over, we would all have a better game, and for those of us who have seen these antics for years would have thought maybe somebody has finally grown up...but people are really sensitive to censorship and that is what Matrix and SimHQ have participated in with the removal of the article...

+1 Couldn't have said it any better.

[Primarchx]

Last time through.

So you think a review should only concentrate on a game's negative aspects? Sorry, that's a rather poor review in my mind. I'd rather hear a reviewer's honest take on the negatives and positives of a game, not just a list of dirty laundry.

ORIGINAL: tevans6220

ORIGINAL: Primarchx

I wouldn't say it's a fair review because, to my recollection it went very far to recount the negatives and hardly touched the positives. That's not a fair review. Did Herman have some valid observations? In some cases, sure. But I feel he overstated many of them while understating many of the outstanding features of the game. As I said, the review was 80% negative and Command is a better game than that.

Frankly, it amazes me that some people don't see such a blatant conflict of interest as being a red flag to many here.

As I said before, it's not up to the reviewer to convince me to buy. That job belongs to the publisher/devs. Reviews don't have to be fair or balanced. And given Matrix' habit of not providing demos, I would rather have a review that lists all the problems instead of one telling me how great a product is. The problem here with most is not the message. It's the messenger. I don't see a huge conflict of interest. The review was either truthful and factual or it wasn't. When I personally experience some of the same things written about in the review, I know it to be factual and truthful. I also know Herman wasn't a shill out to give Matrix an outstanding review just so a website could gain some or more of Matrix advertising dollars. Pulling that review makes it seem just that way though.

[wombat778]

ORIGINAL: tevans6220
As I said before, it's not up to the reviewer to convince me to buy. That job belongs to the publisher/devs. Reviews don't have to be fair or balanced.

FWIW, I disagree completely with this. I absolutely expect published/professional reviews (as opposed to customer reviews) to be fair and balanced. I believe they need to cover the good points and the bad points of a product to give an overall fair assessment of the product based on the reviewer's experience. A quality review is one where the reader can walk away knowing the pros and cons of a product to enable them to make a purchasing decision WITHOUT reference to outside resources. If I have to go to a publisher/developer site to find more information to "counterbalance" a review that focused only on the negative, then it was a very poor and useless review indeed.

All that said, I am not sure that pulling the review was the right path. Perhaps adding a disclaimer at the front might have made more sense. Of course, I do not know all the facts (e.g., maybe the author refused to allow a disclaimer).