This is why the board gaming industry is so great. The friendliness of the companies, CEOs, people in the industry. They sit down, play a game, and have fun. They will recommend games that are and often aren't published by them, because they cant deny a great idea or mechanic. All the companies make at least one great game, that people enjoy- or else the company wouldn't be in business for long. I'm happy to be a boardgamer and support great companies. And I'm excited for Origins!
One reason that I like Dice Tower so much is the fact that they have multiple people reviewing the same games. I can pick and choose who's opinions are relative to my own and follow them.
Great idea to do this! And a perfect range of personalities and viewpoints for this discussion. I really enjoy Rodney's point about the difference between being skeptical vs being cynical. That's a great point that I will repeat for many years to come. This BackTalk idea is a good thing.
@12:20 Stephen mentions that people act like there's some conspiracy running around. Well, the reason why people are at least willing to entertain that notion is because there actually have been very well documented conspiracies within reviewer cliques in other industries. I'm not saying that there is one here in board games, but it has happened in other forms of media and entertainment, so no it isn't some wild outlandish thing that could never be. There are, for me, two main catalysts for distrust. The first is secrecy. In other industries it happens sometimes where some reviewer heaps praise upon a person's projects and later it comes out that they're long time personal friends, possibly to the point of having lived together even. Disclosure goes an incredibly long way towards helping alleviate this. Maybe they did legitimately enjoy those products, but when it comes out at a later date that the reviewer was not disclosing a deep personal relationship and even concealing it then, yeah, it looks really bad and a huge amount of trust is lost there. Transparency is a good thing. The second thing is politics. Probably the most significant and most harmful vector for this kind of thing comes from reviewers giving products good reviews for their creators kowtowing to their particular brand of politics, or negative reviews if they don't. Thankfully, board games are a largely apolitical arena, and hopefully it remains so indefinitely. Having reviewers pan or hype products based on the politics of the creators is downright destructive to the integrity of the entire industry. Bias is a thing that absolutely never can or will go away. Absolute objectivity is impossible and honestly undesirable. But, your audience deserves to be informed of what biases you have when you make reviews. If you're a fanboy of this designer, that should be known. If you''re good personal friends with them, that should be out there. If money changed hands to make this review or video happen, that should be disclosed. I'm not saying make giant disclaimers at the start of the video, but maybe for example including an honest accounting of potential significant biases in the low bar is a good thing.
This issue is on peoples minds due to the ethics in journalism incident associated with "GamersGate" in the videogame industry. Summaries can be found on the wiki for TotalBiscuit under Consumer advocacy, or an article on kotaku titled "The Messy Story Behind RUclipsrs Taking Money For Game Coverage". It's less about friendship, and more about disclosure of financial interests. I don't doubt that the Dice Tower and Watch It Played have only the best interests of their audience and the industry as their main goal, but the consumer should be informed so they can judge for themselves. I have been Watching It Played for years but don't recall any play through mentioning compensation from the publisher. Same idea with the Dice Tower's coverage of CMON, Tom mention being compensated for time away from reviews. If the coverage at conventions is being supported by the convention, it's still great media to create but should be disclosed. By disclosing, you're empowering the consumer to make their own judgements.
What about conflicts of interest like if Stronghold starts doing reviews or Rodney publishes a game? I'm fascinated by how Tom deals with his own game, "Nothing Personal". He seems to avoid talking about it or bringing it up. Very interesting conversation, thanks guys!
Alarm bells would ring for me if Stronghold Games released a Cthulhu game, and Tom said he liked it. Until that happens, I believe they are being honest. :)
I think it's great that board game media and industry have such good relationships. It leads to better games and better coverage of up-and-coming games. It also allows for great videos like these to be produced!
I think its beneficial for the audience that these relationships exist. It often allows media makers insights and early access that will help us make more informed decisions. That's a fair trade for any negligible personal biases that may come along with the relationship.
I agree with all the points you guys raised. If you don't take every review with a grain of salt based on the reviewers pre-existing bias for their game-style, you're doing yourself a great disservice. The whole reason I watch the Dice Tower is for Tom and Zee's reviews: they tend to speak to my gaming preferences.
I watch the reviews for the gameplay and the mechanics, and hopefully can form my own opinion. so reviewers opinions are not weighed heavily when I decide if I want to buy Agamemnon or not
To me it doesn't matter who they are friends with or what money is exchanged ... I have a bias I like certain type of games and I watch the reviews and play throughs and decide for myself if I want to invest in that game or not... I don't think Tom or anyone at the Dice Tower believe their word is gold and if they like it you must buy it ... Personally I love their reviews and all episodes and appreciate what they do for the hobby. Thanks guys
A point that wasn't made was that if you buy a game based on a review and you agree with the review... doesn't that count for something? If Tom was paid $100 to day that Uno was a 10/10, and you bought it and loved it... maybe that's good enough. If you hated it and stopped watching the videos, he'd lose in the long run.
People who instantly think that a positive review means the reviewer was "paid off" will go through the life unsatisfied since only a negative review ("anti-biased"?) will satisfy them. Ignore them.
Dudes! This is about "the game" and the player's enjoyment, not "politics". Even among reviewers, there are clearly very distinct opinions as to what they like or not. ME...? I watch the Dice Tower, Marcowargamer, Stuka Joe, and many others. After awhile, there are reviewers I trust, because they "Game" the way I do.... let me be specific... I enjoy all three members of the Dice Tower, BUT... I'm a Sam Healy fanboy, THOUGH I respect Zee's perspective and have found many surprise games I would not have found... "The Grizzled", for example... Tom has his fine points and makes great points. AFTER I've heard The Dice Tower... I'll see if Marcowargamer likes it or dislikes it. I trust his opinion. I love the fact that Rodney does what he does... I owned "Mansions of Madness" but could not get through the rules, IF Rodney had not did a complete play through, I would still continue to be lost... God love you for that! Stuka Joe does amazing videos and gives me lots of great ideas whether the game is too complex or entertaining for me. IF the game intrigues me, I'll watch EVERYBODY'S review of it... whether they are MY type of gamer or not. To be specific... "Starlight Citadel" were more "casual" gamers than I am... BUT they were quick to point out the game's flaws and balance their review. Single Handed Gamer gives me a local (from my garage) P.O.V. and I like that kind of sincerity. I LOVE when Dan Verssen explains one of his games. One day, I will have a game shelf that gets close to Marcowargamer or Tom's, but it will be built upon smart buys, and a great deal of good gaming sense, not just hype. Thanks guys... I'd be lost without all of you...
I totally agree with Rodney Smith. As a history grad you never just use one source to form a conclusion. You look at multiple sources. You might favor one over another but you get different opinions and views. I even watch reviewers of games that I know they are completely bias towards a type of game. Why? Because I don't just buy games for myself but to play with my friends and board game groups. They all have different likes so I want different points of views. Even if they are paid reviewers they may know something about the game that a non-paid reviewer doesn't.
Would be interesting to follow up with Stephen regarding whether a negative review drastically impacts a game. IMO, no such thing as bad press and the fact that the game is getting exposure to thousands of people has to be a positive, even if the review is poor. Has to be better than never being mentioned on a big channel.
(I'm commenting as I watch). I think Tom is portrayed asa pretty ethical guy. I say portrayed only b/c I don't know him personally. He is upfront about his friendships. Each viewer can consider that when watching a review and considering a purchase. Everything appears to be on the up and up. Although, with some people this could be a very bad situation.
When I watch game reviews, I put a lot more weight into deciding if a game sounds good based on it's mechanisms, components, etc. then I do on the reviewers opinion. If they say it's great or it's horrible, they better be able to give reasons for it, or that doesn't mean very much to me.
I think the difference between a good review and a bad review, is how you accentuate the negatives. Most reviews of the game Millennium Blades, are excellent, because you KNOW why people would like it, and why they would not. Why you don't like something is a lot more important than why you do. Also we the gamers need to take the reviewers personal taste into effect. For example Zee loves trick taking games, i hate them so when he says "this great game blah blah blah fun fun yay, this is a trick taking game..." i shut off the video. Because i know those games are bad for me. Same as if i ever made a video and Zee would see my review of mage knight "amazing deep, deckbuilding exploration, and magic awesomesauce all around in 2-4 hour playtime..." he would run xD we know what we like and what we don't, and i can tell you for a fact, every single one of us, likes honesty.
One thing that was not mentioned is that have when a producer and a reviewer having a good relationship results in BETTER games. A so-so game may just need a new theme or mechanic shift to be a great game. An honest review will promote that change where a false review will hid the flaw in a overly positive review or a too negative review and the game is cancelled or shelved.
I feel like people will see evidence of bias in literally anything you could do, and are willing to cook up elaborate explanations on the back of whichever psychological or political motivations they think would be important.. Even going to an invite only convention can be seen by some as bias towards a particular company that might put it on. I think in the vast majority of the cases there just isn't any reason to think anything is going on, and when you ask someone saying there is bias what their evidence is, and to fully explain it and flesh it out with evidence of how it is going on, it is just never very convincing. It is always just, 'oh John the reviewer went to a conference and got a free lunch, i don't know what was spoken about there or have any evidence any kind of agreement was made, nor have I watched the reviews of the subsequent games to check whether they are actually more positive than usual, but this is clear evidence of bias.' - That is just not good enough.
Because, as Rodney notes, everyone in the world has their own inherent biases, you simply aren't going to get much out of reviews if all you're looking at is whether the reviewer says the game is good or not. If you want to be a discriminating buyer, you need to use the review to examine the gameplay and decide for yourself.
I don't mind that Tom is a to friend to someone in a game company I just want to know when they fly him out to a convention, we should not pretend that companies spend money on reviewers for any reason other then to sell more board games. Yes everyone has bias but someone who is wined and dined has more bias and that's why disclosure is important so the consumer can make there own choice.
Anytime you get a free product, there is some hesitation. That is just the nature of human beings. Once they are your friends, it is even harder. Calling a bad game, okay but not great. Calling a terrible game, bad or middle of the road. Calling a good game, great. It is nearly impossible to not give your friend the benefit of the doubt. I don't think anyone would take a terrible game and say it is great. Not reviewing something because you don't want to trash a friends game is similar. These are humans. To expect more is not realistic.
And a good reviewer will tell me WHY they don't like a game with enough information that I might well thing 'hey, he doesn't like it but I think I will'.
I'm glad The Dice Tower stopped doing paid previews. A reviewer doing paid previews (structured in the same manner as a review) represents a more genuine conflict of interest. I'd much rather dig into my pocket to kickstart a content provider than see them engage in this practice.
Tom is the with the most to lose. If game publishers put out good games, people will buy (see Games Workshop). The companies don't mind getting on the reviewers good side. If the public turns on Tom, he loses all (most?) of his funding. My two cents. Very interesting topic.
The subject is fully dependant on what the individual watching the review wants from the reviewer. If the potential customer watches Vasel and only Vasel and takes his review of a game as gospel, then he/she is setting themselves up for potential disappointment. Whether or not Tom and Buonocore are friends is irrelevant. If I want a good deckbuilder, I will watch Vasel's review, Rodney's rule analysis, listen to podcasts etc..If the culmination of that data interests me..great, if not oh well. Payola or not, relationship or not, its up to the consumer to do their homework if they are that fearful of bias.
Three of my favorite people to listen to in the hobby boardgame industry. Great to watch...
This is why the board gaming industry is so great. The friendliness of the companies, CEOs, people in the industry. They sit down, play a game, and have fun. They will recommend games that are and often aren't published by them, because they cant deny a great idea or mechanic. All the companies make at least one great game, that people enjoy- or else the company wouldn't be in business for long. I'm happy to be a boardgamer and support great companies. And I'm excited for Origins!
I really enjoyed this BackTalk. Really good points! =o)
One reason that I like Dice Tower so much is the fact that they have multiple people reviewing the same games. I can pick and choose who's opinions are relative to my own and follow them.
Agreed! I always trust Zee's review more and not meaning because he seems more honest but because we have similar tastes in games.
Great idea to do this! And a perfect range of personalities and viewpoints for this discussion. I really enjoy Rodney's point about the difference between being skeptical vs being cynical. That's a great point that I will repeat for many years to come. This BackTalk idea is a good thing.
What a great conversation! This was such a good topic for these personalities!
@12:20 Stephen mentions that people act like there's some conspiracy running around. Well, the reason why people are at least willing to entertain that notion is because there actually have been very well documented conspiracies within reviewer cliques in other industries. I'm not saying that there is one here in board games, but it has happened in other forms of media and entertainment, so no it isn't some wild outlandish thing that could never be.
There are, for me, two main catalysts for distrust. The first is secrecy. In other industries it happens sometimes where some reviewer heaps praise upon a person's projects and later it comes out that they're long time personal friends, possibly to the point of having lived together even. Disclosure goes an incredibly long way towards helping alleviate this. Maybe they did legitimately enjoy those products, but when it comes out at a later date that the reviewer was not disclosing a deep personal relationship and even concealing it then, yeah, it looks really bad and a huge amount of trust is lost there. Transparency is a good thing.
The second thing is politics. Probably the most significant and most harmful vector for this kind of thing comes from reviewers giving products good reviews for their creators kowtowing to their particular brand of politics, or negative reviews if they don't. Thankfully, board games are a largely apolitical arena, and hopefully it remains so indefinitely. Having reviewers pan or hype products based on the politics of the creators is downright destructive to the integrity of the entire industry.
Bias is a thing that absolutely never can or will go away. Absolute objectivity is impossible and honestly undesirable. But, your audience deserves to be informed of what biases you have when you make reviews. If you're a fanboy of this designer, that should be known. If you''re good personal friends with them, that should be out there. If money changed hands to make this review or video happen, that should be disclosed. I'm not saying make giant disclaimers at the start of the video, but maybe for example including an honest accounting of potential significant biases in the low bar is a good thing.
This issue is on peoples minds due to the ethics in journalism incident associated with "GamersGate" in the videogame industry. Summaries can be found on the wiki for TotalBiscuit under Consumer advocacy, or an article on kotaku titled "The Messy Story Behind RUclipsrs Taking Money For Game Coverage".
It's less about friendship, and more about disclosure of financial interests. I don't doubt that the Dice Tower and Watch It Played have only the best interests of their audience and the industry as their main goal, but the consumer should be informed so they can judge for themselves. I have been Watching It Played for years but don't recall any play through mentioning compensation from the publisher. Same idea with the Dice Tower's coverage of CMON, Tom mention being compensated for time away from reviews. If the coverage at conventions is being supported by the convention, it's still great media to create but should be disclosed. By disclosing, you're empowering the consumer to make their own judgements.
What about conflicts of interest like if Stronghold starts doing reviews or Rodney publishes a game? I'm fascinated by how Tom deals with his own game, "Nothing Personal". He seems to avoid talking about it or bringing it up. Very interesting conversation, thanks guys!
4:36 PREACH IT Rodney!
Alarm bells would ring for me if Stronghold Games released a Cthulhu game, and Tom said he liked it. Until that happens, I believe they are being honest. :)
I think it's great that board game media and industry have such good relationships. It leads to better games and better coverage of up-and-coming games. It also allows for great videos like these to be produced!
Best one yet! Great stuff!
I would kill to see Rodney and Eric do an episode together.
Awesome series, Tom!
I think its beneficial for the audience that these relationships exist. It often allows media makers insights and early access that will help us make more informed decisions. That's a fair trade for any negligible personal biases that may come along with the relationship.
Great discussion!
very interesting topic, well done guys
I agree with all the points you guys raised. If you don't take every review with a grain of salt based on the reviewers pre-existing bias for their game-style, you're doing yourself a great disservice. The whole reason I watch the Dice Tower is for Tom and Zee's reviews: they tend to speak to my gaming preferences.
I watch the reviews for the gameplay and the mechanics, and hopefully can form my own opinion. so reviewers opinions are not weighed heavily when I decide if I want to buy Agamemnon or not
Agamemnon?? good one autocorrect...... *a game*
Since you mentioned it, I went to look what was Agamemnon like and, go figure... I found it interesting... ...Way to go, autocorrect... LOL
+5ergion autocorrect: enlightening peoples lives since 2004
Great Video!
To me it doesn't matter who they are friends with or what money is exchanged ... I have a bias I like certain type of games and I watch the reviews and play throughs and decide for myself if I want to invest in that game or not... I don't think Tom or anyone at the Dice Tower believe their word is gold and if they like it you must buy it ... Personally I love their reviews and all episodes and appreciate what they do for the hobby. Thanks guys
A point that wasn't made was that if you buy a game based on a review and you agree with the review... doesn't that count for something? If Tom was paid $100 to day that Uno was a 10/10, and you bought it and loved it... maybe that's good enough. If you hated it and stopped watching the videos, he'd lose in the long run.
Where can I purchase Tom's Fun in a Bottle and does it come with mini's?
People who instantly think that a positive review means the reviewer was "paid off" will go through the life unsatisfied since only a negative review ("anti-biased"?) will satisfy them. Ignore them.
great video
Dudes! This is about "the game" and the player's enjoyment, not "politics". Even among reviewers, there are clearly very distinct opinions as to what they like or not. ME...? I watch the Dice Tower, Marcowargamer, Stuka Joe, and many others. After awhile, there are reviewers I trust, because they "Game" the way I do.... let me be specific... I enjoy all three members of the Dice Tower, BUT... I'm a Sam Healy fanboy, THOUGH I respect Zee's perspective and have found many surprise games I would not have found... "The Grizzled", for example... Tom has his fine points and makes great points. AFTER I've heard The Dice Tower... I'll see if Marcowargamer likes it or dislikes it. I trust his opinion. I love the fact that Rodney does what he does... I owned "Mansions of Madness" but could not get through the rules, IF Rodney had not did a complete play through, I would still continue to be lost... God love you for that! Stuka Joe does amazing videos and gives me lots of great ideas whether the game is too complex or entertaining for me. IF the game intrigues me, I'll watch EVERYBODY'S review of it... whether they are MY type of gamer or not. To be specific... "Starlight Citadel" were more "casual" gamers than I am... BUT they were quick to point out the game's flaws and balance their review. Single Handed Gamer gives me a local (from my garage) P.O.V. and I like that kind of sincerity. I LOVE when Dan Verssen explains one of his games. One day, I will have a game shelf that gets close to Marcowargamer or Tom's, but it will be built upon smart buys, and a great deal of good gaming sense, not just hype. Thanks guys... I'd be lost without all of you...
"Right, Steve you got your red, check, I've got my red, check. Rodney you good to go? Got your r........, Rodney, common man checkers?"
I totally agree with Rodney Smith. As a history grad you never just use one source to form a conclusion. You look at multiple sources. You might favor one over another but you get different opinions and views. I even watch reviewers of games that I know they are completely bias towards a type of game. Why? Because I don't just buy games for myself but to play with my friends and board game groups. They all have different likes so I want different points of views. Even if they are paid reviewers they may know something about the game that a non-paid reviewer doesn't.
Would be interesting to follow up with Stephen regarding whether a negative review drastically impacts a game. IMO, no such thing as bad press and the fact that the game is getting exposure to thousands of people has to be a positive, even if the review is poor. Has to be better than never being mentioned on a big channel.
(I'm commenting as I watch). I think Tom is portrayed asa pretty ethical guy. I say portrayed only b/c I don't know him personally. He is upfront about his friendships. Each viewer can consider that when watching a review and considering a purchase. Everything appears to be on the up and up. Although, with some people this could be a very bad situation.
When I watch game reviews, I put a lot more weight into deciding if a game sounds good based on it's mechanisms, components, etc. then I do on the reviewers opinion. If they say it's great or it's horrible, they better be able to give reasons for it, or that doesn't mean very much to me.
Please tell Stephen to make Stronghold games boxes slightly smaller... They won't fit on my shelf.
off topic, i know, but... was there a dress code to this video?
I think the difference between a good review and a bad review, is how you accentuate the negatives. Most reviews of the game Millennium Blades, are excellent, because you KNOW why people would like it, and why they would not. Why you don't like something is a lot more important than why you do.
Also we the gamers need to take the reviewers personal taste into effect. For example Zee loves trick taking games, i hate them so when he says "this great game blah blah blah fun fun yay, this is a trick taking game..." i shut off the video. Because i know those games are bad for me. Same as if i ever made a video and Zee would see my review of mage knight "amazing deep, deckbuilding exploration, and magic awesomesauce all around in 2-4 hour playtime..." he would run xD
we know what we like and what we don't, and i can tell you for a fact, every single one of us, likes honesty.
One thing that was not mentioned is that have when a producer and a reviewer having a good relationship results in BETTER games. A so-so game may just need a new theme or mechanic shift to be a great game. An honest review will promote that change where a false review will hid the flaw in a overly positive review or a too negative review and the game is cancelled or shelved.
Who'd have thought you'd need to be nice and agreeable in order to get people to associate with you. WHO'D HAVE THOUGHT!!
Stephen Buonocore and sci-fi legend Harlan Ellison - separated at birth? :-)
I feel like people will see evidence of bias in literally anything you could do, and are willing to cook up elaborate explanations on the back of whichever psychological or political motivations they think would be important.. Even going to an invite only convention can be seen by some as bias towards a particular company that might put it on. I think in the vast majority of the cases there just isn't any reason to think anything is going on, and when you ask someone saying there is bias what their evidence is, and to fully explain it and flesh it out with evidence of how it is going on, it is just never very convincing.
It is always just, 'oh John the reviewer went to a conference and got a free lunch, i don't know what was spoken about there or have any evidence any kind of agreement was made, nor have I watched the reviews of the subsequent games to check whether they are actually more positive than usual, but this is clear evidence of bias.' - That is just not good enough.
Because, as Rodney notes, everyone in the world has their own inherent biases, you simply aren't going to get much out of reviews if all you're looking at is whether the reviewer says the game is good or not. If you want to be a discriminating buyer, you need to use the review to examine the gameplay and decide for yourself.
I don't mind that Tom is a to friend to someone in a game company I just want to know when they fly him out to a convention,
we should not pretend that companies spend money on reviewers for any reason other then to sell more board games.
Yes everyone has bias but someone who is wined and dined has more bias and that's why disclosure is important so the consumer can make there own choice.
Anytime you get a free product, there is some hesitation. That is just the nature of human beings. Once they are your friends, it is even harder. Calling a bad game, okay but not great. Calling a terrible game, bad or middle of the road. Calling a good game, great. It is nearly impossible to not give your friend the benefit of the doubt. I don't think anyone would take a terrible game and say it is great. Not reviewing something because you don't want to trash a friends game is similar. These are humans. To expect more is not realistic.
on't rely on one source for news, reviews etc. There are multiple sources so do some research and then buy the games.
And a good reviewer will tell me WHY they don't like a game with enough information that I might well thing 'hey, he doesn't like it but I think I will'.
I'm glad The Dice Tower stopped doing paid previews. A reviewer doing paid previews (structured in the same manner as a review) represents a more genuine conflict of interest. I'd much rather dig into my pocket to kickstart a content provider than see them engage in this practice.
Tom is the with the most to lose. If game publishers put out good games, people will buy (see Games Workshop). The companies don't mind getting on the reviewers good side. If the public turns on Tom, he loses all (most?) of his funding. My two cents. Very interesting topic.
The subject is fully dependant on what the individual watching the review wants from the reviewer. If the potential customer watches Vasel and only Vasel and takes his review of a game as gospel, then he/she is setting themselves up for potential disappointment. Whether or not Tom and Buonocore are friends is irrelevant. If I want a good deckbuilder, I will watch Vasel's review, Rodney's rule analysis, listen to podcasts etc..If the culmination of that data interests me..great, if not oh well. Payola or not, relationship or not, its up to the consumer to do their homework if they are that fearful of bias.