Bethsoft vs Community Sites [Archive]

Dhruin

February 10th, 2007, 22:14

I've had a few emails on this subject wanting this issue on the front page. I'm working this weekend, am hosting a series of meetings from Monday and have a conference the week after, so I don't have the time to absorb the details or work up the outrage.

So, you tell me. Is this an outrageous abuse that gamers should fight against, a sad state of affairs but nothing that concerning or just a beat up by interested parties.

It's about the way Bethsoft treated a Star Trek fans site (Bethsoft recently published a ST strategy game to poor reviews) and obviously spills over into Elder Scrolls, Fallout 3, whether NMA was "blackbanned" and so on.

Interviews at MA with the trekkies:

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34700

I've put this in General RPG, because any discussion will ultimately head towards Oblivion and the recent Fallout fan community articles at NMA.

Thoughts?

magerette

February 11th, 2007, 02:05

It's a pretty disturbing situation IMO. The STG site looks credible to me, certainly it shows a lot of hits and fan presence. It looks like one of those situations, though, where you would have to delve deep into the actual posts which prompted the blacklisting--if the criticism became too heated and offensive, Bethsoft has a right to regulate their forums just like any other site.

If the blacklisting is an attempt to censor the honest opinions of a large number of the game's fan base as STG maintains, however, it is a shortsighted and counterproductive effort on Beth's part, and they will deserve all the bad press and bad blood coming down the information superhighway in their direction.

Note: I had no idea Interplay did the first Star Trek game. What a company that was!

abbaon

February 11th, 2007, 02:30

At the time of the blackbarring, STG was home to such comments as (http://www.startrek-gamers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2178):

The cow that calls herself marketing artist is a third-rate, asinine fellatist of male donkeys that couldn't find her own mutney with a mirror.

A forum moderator was conducting an organised campaign of harassment (http://www.startrek-gamers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2177) against said donkey fellatist:

Anyone that is disgruntled by the antics of the Alexander, Cow, Rouge Vulcan of Legacy forums please send you emails to the marketing Artist at Bethsoft and Lead Admin of the forums to:

Lindsay Muller
lmuller@bethsoft.com

And also this thread (http://www.startrek-gamers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2353). STG is populated and staffed by some seriously low-wattage, unhinged individuals. Bethesda responded to their antics as any rational business would. There's no story here, and this non-story has nothing to do with RPGs. It's pretty funny, though, so go ahead and post it.

Edit: Forgot to mention Victor1st's alleged rivalry with MadDoc employee ChessMess ("SIEG! HEIL!" (http://www.startrek-gamers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=20975#20923)), the Führer of the 3rd Reich of Star Trek gaming (http://www.startrek-gamers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=32596#32613). Yes, that part is true. No, I didn't know they had one either.

themadhatter

February 12th, 2007, 02:54

Thank you, abbaon, for presenting the other side of the conflict.
The truth is that some of the STG members were becoming rather offensive in the comments, however, for my part, I do not believe a total blacklisting of their site was in order. I mean, it wasn't just removed as a link to a fan-site, but also from every thread citing it and personal signatures.
Also, you have to credit the STG folk with a certain degree of justification. If you have played Star Trek: Legacy, the game that caused most of this furor, you know how unbelievably wretched it is. More than a disgrace to the Star Trek franchise, it is a disgrace to space combat sims and videogames. Everything from the mindless combat, brain-dead AI, non-responsive and awkward controls, to the very scale of items and "realistic" physics is a testament to the shoddy work put into this title, ultimately amounting to but one more attempt to shake down a certain demographic for their cash.

Dez

February 12th, 2007, 10:33

Doesn't really surprise that benthesa can't handle critic.. Despite those bad behaving individuals banning whole site is just weird. It doesn't put benthesa in good light no matter what the situation was. Besides this ain't the first time when they blacklisted some site or topic from discusion.

And benthesa has a questionable reputation in terms of how they do pr-work. False promises, not responding to bug-threads... And the whole radiant AI thing was a joke.

Ionstormsucks

February 12th, 2007, 17:28

Bethesda has the right to cooperate with whomever they want - or not. And the Star Trek website can pretty much write about Bethesda's game whatever they want. That's just how journalism works - also outside of the internet.
Usually it's not really an advantage if a company does not cooperate with the press, normally it causes a dispute, people begin to ask questions, etc. Still, every company or individual has the right to do it (ever heard of an exclusive interview?). Now, if it is really true that the community of that Star Trek website used the forum to personally attack members of Bethesda then I can understand Bethesda quite well.
Now, I understand Bethesda... that doesn't mean I would act like these guys. As you can see their behavior just causes trouble and they will just lose reputation. It's a vivid sign that whoever is responsible for their pr has no idea of his/her job.

txa1265

February 12th, 2007, 18:22

I'm having a hard time with this one as well - but that doesn't mean that they're wrong.

The problem is that I have hit a certain age and professional standing where someone coming at me with a 'logical argument' full or profanity, hyperbole and vitriol shuts off my brain pretty darn fast.

Sure we all let loose once in a while, and not all criticism is (or should be) constructive. And perhaps I just couldn't stand to sift through all of the infantile ranting and 'me too' posts to find the constructive stuff alluded to multiple times.

I remember what I said the time someone (a recent college graduate looking for a job as an engineer on my team) dropped the f-bomb twice in an interview - If you want to be taken seriously, behave seriously. Act like a 13-year old in a chat-room, and that is how you'll be treated.

I know, I know ... ZOMG F U n00b!

Brother None

February 12th, 2007, 18:42

*snip*

So how does that coincide with Bethesda ordering STG to remove comments from their podcast?

Or consider that they blacklisted the RPGCodex for reasons that had always been present (site content, image links, whatever), but this blacklisting just happened to be right after VDweller's review of Oblivion?

I'm not saying that according to their own rules Bethesda is wrong. If Bethesda's rule is to moderate comments made on another site by enforcing a policy on their own forum...well, that's their own choice. It's bad pr, but it's their good right.

That does not vaguely explain the happy coincidence of STG and the RPGCodex being banned *right* after making an expansive, public criticism of two Bethesda-published games. You can stand on your head playing the cymbals for all I care, but question is; are you going to defend this coincidence as just that...coincidence?

magerette

February 12th, 2007, 18:58

The problem is that I have hit a certain age and professional standing where someone coming at me with a 'logical argument' full or profanity, hyperbole and vitriol shuts off my brain pretty darn fast.
.
.. Act like a 13-year old in a chat-room, and that is how you'll be treated.

I know, I know ... ZOMG F U n00b!

Couldn't agree with you more. The freedom of opinion voiced on the internet is an excellent--and sometimes hilarious--thing, but people only undermine their own credibility by frothing at the mouth and indulging in egregious (if creative) diatribes of highly colored profanity and personal insult. You can enjoy these types of posts as entertainment or deplore them as excess, but either way it's hard to take them very seriously.

I'm bothered a little bit more by STG's contention that Beth pimped their Star trek game on the site pre-release, granting interviews left and right, then suddenly closed the door.

If this did indeed happen before any major off the wall flaming began, and only because the site was not gung-ho on the title and saying so (thier review gave the title 71%, tho not in a very friendly way :) ) then the unpleasant dungball of this issue is rolled into the Beth camp.

Of course, this is the impression STG would like us to have, but I really don't care enough to unpeel the onion --by delving into the whole sad morass of outrage/personality conflicts/hate blogs etc- and find out. If someone has the proof to back this up, they can probably rest at least some of thier case.

Whichever way it really happened, the end result does neither the site, the game nor Bethesda any good.

@Kharn-your NMA sig is a classic :)

abbaon

February 12th, 2007, 23:53

The Codex blackbanning also coincided with its members spamming the forum with links to their lawl mudcrabs photoshops, after the moderators closed the first thread. The STG blackballing coincided with its members flaming staff and developers on the ESF forums, the STG forums, and via the personal email addresses and IM accounts which were posted on the STG boards -- which is quite disturbing, actually. These facts are sufficient to explain the moderators' actions. They don't have infinite time to deal with your adopted idiot children, so they discouraged further tantrums by withholding their attention. It worked.

Would the ESF moderators blackborscht a site whose users criticised Bethsoft games, but otherwise acted like adults? It's an interesting question, but neither of these cases answers it.

Brother None

February 13th, 2007, 00:37

Would the ESF moderators blackborscht a site whose users criticised Bethsoft games, but otherwise acted like adults? It's an interesting question, but neither of these cases answers it.

The moderators don't decide blacklisting, as far as I know. Also, are you saying sites should be held responsible for not having control over actions of their own posters on other forums? If they bothered the ESF, why didn't the moderators just ban those users?

That said, how about the coincidence that at the same time as the Codex' image-spam, ESF posters were acting in ways and linking to sites, the reason of which has been cited as reason to blacklist the Codex.

Look, it's not an either-or here. I don't deny "just cause", I deny "just motive". You think that unrealistic?

abbaon

February 13th, 2007, 00:55

Brother None

February 13th, 2007, 01:13

I think that when I have a phenomenon to explain, conspiracy theories are my last recourse, not my first. Neither of us can read men's souls. If you want to attribute sinister motives to Bethsoft's employees, then your journalistic integrity must surely compel you to first search for more compelling evidence than these coincidences, since you have a perfectly valid and above-board explanation staring you in the face.

The question shouldn't first be "is it above-board or not" or "is it official or not", the fact that the explanation comes from Bethesda makes it as reliable as any explanation from RPGCodex and STG.

If I apply Occam's Razor, the most direct, straightforward conclusion to explain several coincidences, including the timing, which sites they banned, the inconsistency of how they act towards the targets and the lack of using alternatives by Bethesda...Occam's Razor directs me towards concluding Bethesda has every reason to blacklist STG/RPGCodex, and amongst those reasons are a wish to silence and stiffle criticism. That is a natural and obvious conclusion, it's hardly a conspiracy theory to think it's true.

PS: though if you want to write a piece "In defense of Bethesda", I'd be fine with publishing that, too

abbaon

February 13th, 2007, 02:11

You've alleged that Beth employees and volunteers conspired to silence their critics and lie about their motives, and you've supported it with nothing more substantial than your highly biased interpretation of some coincidences. There's no other term for that than conspiracy theory. Naturally, you can apply any criteria you like when forming your personal opinions; I never contested that. I said that this isn't a news story, and it's not. It's a baseless and malicious rumor. It would be unethical for anyone calling himself a news provider to help you disseminate it.

And unfortunately, Dhruin probably cares about that stuff. I implore him to set aside his standards and post this newsbit. Funny is funny.

Dhruin

February 13th, 2007, 04:41

Sorry to do a flyby posting and run off but my time is limited. Kharn, when I read the interview, all I saw is several questions that indicate Bethsoft screwed up this game (fine - but I can list dozens of games that do that), a story of a ST site that is at war with another (and I don't know which is in the "right" -- what would the other site say?) and a bunch of vitriolic rubbish at the ST site that probably explained the "blackban" quite well.

Should Bethsoft cut off sites they don't like? Probably not -- but that's their call. With the apparent criticism is accompanied by over-the-top vitriol, malicious email campaigns, image campaigns and forum trolling, I'd probably blackban them as well.

I just don't see a story. What I do see, is you guys being anxious to add this to your list of Bethsoft grievances - which is also your right - but you can can conduct that on your own sites.

You asked if you should be responsible for the actions of your users. The answer is no - BUT, if you don't moderate the behaviour at the extremes (and again, that's your right to do as you please), surely you have to accept if someone can't take it.

On the ST guy being told what to do with his podcast...doesn't he simply tell them "sorry, my bandwidth - get stuffed"? Where's the story in that?

Brother None

February 13th, 2007, 12:52

You've alleged that Beth employees and volunteers conspired to silence their critics and lie about their motives, and you've supported it with nothing more substantial than your highly biased interpretation of some coincidences.

You're right that on the surface it's a cum hoc ergo propter hoc to say that all these coincidences share the common factor of blacklisting following criticism and thus it is a form of cencorship of criticism.

However, it's equally cum hoc ergo propter hoc to imply that the common factor of the sites being populated by assholes (and many sites of ESF visitors are that) is the reason for blacklisting.

Since both arguments are fallacious, you could argue that picking either one implies bias.

That said, with another coincidence of Bethesda disallowing a critical piece (http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=638309) (note the given reason: "Biggest load of BS I've ever had the pleasure of half reading. Therefore it was deleted." It is untrue and therefore must be removed? False arguments aren't allowed on the ES forums?) pops up, there is bound to be a breaking point where correlation really DOES imply causation. I think that breaking point has been crossed (bias?), you don't, maybe you'll never think that breaking point will be crossed.

Also, you have an interesting perception of journalistic standards. You do realise I have worked professionally in the industry, right? If so, do you realise it is more "unethical" for every media to deny STG's Victor the chance to let himself be heard, and there is nothing "unethical" about conducting an interview with him to let him say what he wants. It's a news story (for NMA, not necessarily for this placE) because both the RPGCodex and the STG site think it's a big deal and have the full right to express said opinion.

Dhruin: I'm not sure what VDweller pm'd you, but remember my pm specifically noted "Probably not your topic." I only sent it to you after Blue's News posted it, since I figured "hey, if Blue thinks it's newsworthy, maybe Dhruin will too".

It is slightly weird that you think there's no story whatsoever in a company trying to dicate a fansite's actions.

bjon045

February 13th, 2007, 14:18

If I was the owner/CEO of Bethsoft and I saw even one of those posts previously cited I would cease all involvement with the previously mentioned site. When you are a company as large as Bethsoft you just can't afford to even allow the slightest association with anything that could bring bad press. Even though they don't have shareholders(share price) to worry about, it's still something someone who is wearing a business hat and not a software developers one would do.

abbaon

February 13th, 2007, 15:15

That said, with another coincidence of Bethesda disallowing a critical piece (http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=638309) (note the given reason: "Biggest load of BS I've ever had the pleasure of half reading. Therefore it was deleted." It is untrue and therefore must be removed? False arguments aren't allowed on the ES forums?) pops up, there is bound to be a breaking point where correlation really DOES imply causation. I think that breaking point has been crossed (bias?), you don't, maybe you'll never think that breaking point will be crossed.
I won't impugn the motives of another without just cause. That's the standard I apply to this situation. Bethsoft will have demonstrated its sinister motives to my satisfaction, and will have crossed that line, when it blackbans a site without that site's users first conducting coordinated campaigns of misbehaviour on the ESF boards.

That's when this will become news. You can copy and paste 7,000 word hit pieces onto the ESF until Doomsday and they won't add up to a case of blackbanning a site for criticism. They don't let you use the ESF as a vehicle for criticism of their company -- that's not news. They ban links to sites that criticise the company -- that's a news story, but only if it's true. This will be scandal rag sensationalism and nothing more until we have an unambiguous case of this behaviour, or internal communication which supports the claim, or something besides more circumstance.

Briosafreak

February 13th, 2007, 15:24

Brother None

February 13th, 2007, 15:26

I won't impugn the motives of another without just cause. That's the standard I apply to this situation. Bethsoft will have demonstrated its sinister motives to my satisfaction, and will have crossed that line, when it blackbans a site without that site's users first conducting coordinated campaigns of misbehaviour on the ESF boards.

Fair enough. Your choice.

You can copy and paste 7,000 word hit pieces onto the ESF until Doomsday and they won't add up to a case of blackbanning a site for criticism.

"wont add up to a case of blackbanning a site for criticism, in my perspective." You mean. Because I'm not the only one with a different perspective, and while I won't cite the Codex or ESF as unbiased places (heh), there are people who read this with interest and gather food for thought out of it without being rabidly anti-Bethesda.

Your contention is a bit skewed. You're saying this isn't newsworthy enough for RPGWatch (though it is for Blue's News), based on some skewed journalistic standard which states that people's opinions should not be heard. I agree in the case of RPGWatch, because this just isn't the kind of stuff RPGWatch covers (as I said in my pm to Dhruin), but you're going to have to substantiate the contention that publishing or posting news about an interview is "unethical" if you want to uphold it.

Alrik Fassbauer

February 13th, 2007, 16:04

Off-Topic :

blackborscht

This is the very first time I read this word. Is it new ?

cum hoc ergo propter hoc

And what does that mean ?

impugn

Another word I don't know ...

Guys, couldn't you just write plain understandable text ? Thank you ...

crpgnut

February 13th, 2007, 16:33

I chuckle every time I read these threads. Dhruin shouldn't give any press to fan-site moderators who have delusions of grandeur about their importance in the scheme of things. A fan-site, even the best, is a mild diversionary place to visit if you happen to have the same tastes of the people who post on the site. I've never made a purchase decision based on a particular site's recommendation. Why would I? I make my decisions based on past history of the company, word of mouth of people who like the same games I like for the same reasons, and articles that are printed by folks who have shown themselves to be trustworthy (Desslock, Scorpia, Corwin, Greg Kasavin) etc. I give much more weight to a news site over a fan site because fan sites are too narrowly focused most of the time.

An example: There is a person in this thread who is posting all about Bethesda, NMA, STG and so forth in at least 5 forums that I'm aware of. Why would I trust anything this person said, as he/she obviously has an agenda? When someone froths at the mouth in this manner, you just chuckle and move on.

Brother None

February 13th, 2007, 17:15

Why would I? I make my decisions based on past history of the company, word of mouth of people who like the same games I like for the same reasons, and articles that are printed by folks who have shown themselves to be trustworthy (Desslock, Scorpia, Corwin, Greg Kasavin) etc. I give much more weight to a news site over a fan site because fan sites are too narrowly focused most of the time.

Good inductive reasoning there. Talk about a frikkin' fallacy of the lonely fact.

Also, not being a steady poster here, I don't know if you were around at the time when RPGDot got all its Van Buren news from NMA. The fan site you speak so denigratingly of was useful back then, wasn't it?

An example: There is a person in this thread who is posting all about Bethesda, NMA, STG and so forth in at least 5 forums that I'm aware of. Why would I trust anything this person said, as he/she obviously has an agenda? When someone froths at the mouth in this manner, you just chuckle and move on.

Posting in more than one forum = having an agenda?

Oohkay...

Alrik:
blackborscht - not a word, just another creative way of naming "blacklist"

cum hoc ergo propter hoc - "correlation implies causation", a logical fallacy that states that because two cases share one common element, they are equal in all elements

impugn - to assail by words or arguments

Alrik Fassbauer

February 13th, 2007, 23:40

OKay, thanks, Kharn.

abbaon

February 13th, 2007, 23:59

"wont add up to a case of blackbanning a site for criticism, in my perspective." You mean.
No, I meant that they're not the same thing. Bethsoft can do one without doing the other, evidence of one is not evidence of the other, and to conclude that it's doing one because it does the other is something other than an exercise of reason.

And Blue's, please. His original newsbit read something along the lines of, "No Mutants Allowed discusses a fan site's issues with BethSoft, but our issue is with that site's plagiarism." He used his link to complain about STG forum users copying and pasting Blue's News articles without attribution (http://www.startrek-gamers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=45197), then replaced the last part of the newsbit with an ellipsis when he got the result he wanted.

I withdraw my contention of unethicality. Vic didn't defame anyone. And I'm not suggesting that he shouldn't be heard. By all means, interview him for your hate-Bethsoft website. Link to him on your blog. My opinion of the newsworthiness of the piece doesn't imply that I vant him zilenced.

magerette

February 14th, 2007, 00:24

This is not news for the the front page of this site, that seemed clear to me, that's why I didn't called your attention. And I'm not convinced that this is a policy of Bethesda, it might be simply their lack of know how regarding fansites with critical views, but still I wouldn't dismiss any of this as simple conspiracy theories, but issues that require further analysis, at a deeper level (http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34770).

I don't have a crystal ball to tell me the future, so I like to gather all the info I can get to have a better understanding of what is at stake, so I follow these issues in that sense.

Bradylama's post as quoted above is a meticulous array of background material on this. Thanks for posting it, Briosafreak.

I find this quote (which I will snip, since Mr. Hines is rather verbose to no purpose) from a Shacknews interview particularly disturbing:

Shack: Have you spoken at all to the original creators of the franchise--who from what I know already had less complete involvement with Fallout 2 than with the first game--in any capacity?

Pete Hines: We have, on an individual basis. Some of those folks have contacted us on varying levels, whether it's a "Hey, good luck" or a job inquiry or what have you. Not really formally though, no...I was a huge Black Isle fan, and all those RPGs coming out of Interplay at the time. I loved Baldur's Gate, Fallout. It was fantastic......They did great stuff for which I will always have tremendous respect. But at the same time, if we're going to move forward, we're really going to have to move forward. We can't just...ask these guys what they think. As Fallout fans and guys who make roleplaying games and have for over a decade, we have pretty good ideas about what we want to do and how to do it. *

Almost as scary as hearing that Donald Trump is on the board;)

*(my bolding)

abbaon

February 14th, 2007, 01:12

I liked this part:
He's certainly lied about company loyalties, possibly lied about being a lurker, and possibly even lied about thinking well of NMA.
"Possibly lied" is a revolting phrase. When you decide to attack someone's integrity, you make your case and you stand behind it. If you don't have a case to make, you don't couch your accusation in weasel words, you shut the fuck up.

And Emil, of all people. You will never meet a more genial and well-intentioned human being. Fallout fans just blow my mind.

Corwin

February 14th, 2007, 01:27

Maybe they should change their name to Egosoft!! :)

Moriendor

February 14th, 2007, 02:49

Maybe they should change their name to Egosoft!! :)

Or since that name is already taken... Smartsoft*

* ...for not hiring those no talent Troika hacks who would probably even manage to fuck up a 'Hello World' program in one way or another. OK. That was almost a little mean. But only almost.

Corwin

February 14th, 2007, 04:24

Mo, are you Trolling??!! You KNOW that Troika comment will attract flames!! :) Can't you do that in one of the forums Jaz moderates!! ;)

Dhruin

February 14th, 2007, 12:56

Dhruin: I'm not sure what VDweller pm'd you, but remember my pm specifically noted "Probably not your topic." I only sent it to you after Blue's News posted it, since I figured "hey, if Blue thinks it's newsworthy, maybe Dhruin will too".

It is slightly weird that you think there's no story whatsoever in a company trying to dicate a fansite's actions.

Yes, you did say that. VD's pm was different, but that doesn't bother me - people are free to send us stuff; sometimes I won't post it. No big deal. Better to send the pm than not and I appreciate being kept in the loop.

Game producers regularly try to control PR, and by extension, fansites. It may be as subtle as dangling exclusives or beta access for toeing the line and it may be more blunt. At the end of the day, nothing is stopping STG from doing whatever they want with their own site or elsewhere, other than Bethsoft's forums. You've seen forum wipes, forums taken down...all sorts of stuff way beyond this assumed conspiracy.

And again, the ridiculous behaviour of some "fans" is enough for me to be disinterested in any other explanation. I may be wrong - but that's how I see it.

Moriendor

February 15th, 2007, 02:44

Mo, are you Trolling??!! You KNOW that Troika comment will attract flames!! :)

Meee? Trooolling? No. Never. What makes you think so? :biggrin:

Can't you do that in one of the forums Jaz moderates!! ;)

OK, will do that next time :) .

And again, the ridiculous behaviour of some "fans" is enough for me to be disinterested in any other explanation.

Well said ;) .

Jaz

February 15th, 2007, 11:49

Mo, are you Trolling??!! You KNOW that Troika comment will attract flames!! :) Can't you do that in one of the forums Jaz moderates!! ;)Now wait - what are you alluding to? I'm just a cute widdle guy with pink shoes!

cutterjohn

February 16th, 2007, 04:11

Or since that name is already taken... Smartsoft*
More likely ToddIamagodsoft.

In any event, last time that I bothered to look at Bethesda's list of Oblivious reviews they listed not a single review in which the score was less that 90+%. At the time several sub-90% reviews existed, although one would never appear as it originates from a nother blacklisted site.

As far as FO3 goes, I think that I've lowered my expectations to nil as I fully expect a first person shooter with cars that you can ride around in and kill monsters as that's what makes an RPG to Toddles.

I saw a radscorpion the other day...

Moriendor

February 16th, 2007, 22:45

More likely ToddIamagodsoft.

In any event, last time that I bothered to look at Bethesda's list of Oblivious reviews they listed not a single review in which the score was less that 90+%. At the time several sub-90% reviews existed, although one would never appear as it originates from a nother blacklisted site.

OK, please post the link to a single publisher's website that links to the critical reviews of their games. Then come back and tell us again that 'behtesda r teh devil!!!111' for ignoring critical reviews. I got a hint for you in the meantime and it's called: General business practice. Does that ring a bell? :)

Dhruin

February 17th, 2007, 03:22

Come on, cutterjohn. Take a look at Obsidian's collection of NWN2 reviews to see the same thing - even Jeff Vogel does it; you won't find my review of Avernum 4 listed in Spiderweb's news because I "only" gave it 7/10.

KazikluBey

February 17th, 2007, 04:23

As far as FO3 goes, I think that I've lowered my expectations to nil as I fully expect a first person shooter with cars that you can ride around in and kill monsters as that's what makes an RPG to Toddles.
At least people could try to get the quote right.
Fantasy, for us, is a knight on horseback running around and killing things.
There is quite a difference between what constitutes a setting, and a genre.

cutterjohn

February 17th, 2007, 10:39

OK, please post the link to a single publisher's website that links to the critical reviews of their games. Then come back and tell us again that 'behtesda r teh devil!!!111' for ignoring critical reviews. I got a hint for you in the meantime and it's called: General business practice. Does that ring a bell? :)Any Valve or Valve published game is one that springs to mind immediately as they directly link to an aggregate review score site.

NWN2 is a poor example as Obsidian is not a publisher, unlike Bethesda. A reputable company would either publish ALL reviews or none at all, anything else is disingenuous.

Ascaron is another. e.g. look at the UFO afterlight review list, I see a whole bunch of low score reviews listed.

This could go on for a while, so I'll cut it short with these two shining examples of honesty and integrity.

@Dhruin, there's a big difference between your review and a review published by gamespot, for example. Additionally Vogel doesn't appear to pay all that much attention to his web site as it's rarely updated, and most frequently update around the time of a "new" game release from him.

Moriendor

February 17th, 2007, 14:51

Any Valve or Valve published game is one that springs to mind immediately as they directly link to an aggregate review score site.

OK, but that's because they know *exactly* that people will get nothing but a good impression from looking at the average score ;) .

NWN2 is a poor example as Obsidian is not a publisher, unlike Bethesda. A reputable company would either publish ALL reviews or none at all, anything else is disingenuous.

Then 99% of developers and publishers are disingenuous.

Ascaron is another. e.g. look at the UFO afterlight review list, I see a whole bunch of low score reviews listed.

Gotta admit it. That's a good find :) . But why Ascaron? The site mentions Cenega (publisher) and Altar (developer). I doubt that Ascaron is behind that. Ascaron is actually well known for only posting positive scores on their corporate site (www.ascaron.com (http://www.ascaron.com)). Anstoss 2007 received its fair share of negative scores. Never seen a single one on Ascaron's corp website.

This could go on for a while, so I'll cut it short with these two shining examples of honesty and integrity.

No. Please go on for a while :biggrin: .

By the way, that's *one* shining example of honesty and integrity since Valve doesn't really count with its average score linkage. One "shining example" out of...?

Anyway, even if you could find 2 or 3 more examples, the point of the whole debate is that it is rather strange to accuse Bethesda of something that must be considered general business practice across the entire developer and publisher scene (or actually the entire "business scene" as a whole since this is not an "issue" that is exclusive to the gaming business). The very vast majority of developers and publishers (or in general businesses who try to sell a product) does not link to negative reviews of their games (products). So why should Bethesda?

cutterjohn

February 17th, 2007, 16:13

OK, but that's because they know *exactly* that people will get nothing but a good impression from looking at the average score ;) .Sorry to disappoint you, but some of their games that I like barely manage to hit the 70s.

Then 99% of developers and publishers are disingenuous.Well, I can't possibly argue with this one as I happen to agree with that assessment.

Gotta admit it. That's a good find :) . But why Ascaron? The site mentions Cenega (publisher) and Altar (developer). I doubt that Ascaron is behind that. Ascaron is actually well known for only posting positive scores on their corporate site (www.ascaron.com (http://www.ascaron.com)). Anstoss 2007 received its fair share of negative scores. Never seen a single one on Ascaron's corp website.It's linked to directly from ascaron's listing of games, and there are other games that they list as theirs WITH low review scores on the "official" sites. I only looked here as you asked for som examples, and, well, there are some. As far as the ascaron corp site, WTF would I look for reviews on a generic corp site?

By the way, that's *one* shining example of honesty and integrity since Valve doesn't really count with its average score linkage. One "shining example" out of...?Really. Why ever not? TO actually see the reviews you HAVE to click on the aggregate score link which then shows ALL of the reviews from any that might be 10/100 to those that might be 100/100. Try again.

BTW: You sound awfully defensive. Not a business "development" employee of a developer or publisher employee by any chance are we?

Anyway, even if you could find 2 or 3 more examples, the point of the whole debate is that it is rather strange to accuse Bethesda of something that must be considered general business practice across the entire developer and publisher scene (or actually the entire "business scene" as a whole since this is not an "issue" that is exclusive to the gaming business). The very vast majority of developers and publishers (or in general businesses who try to sell a product) does not link to negative reviews of their games (products). So why should Bethesda?Sorry, I don't plan on wasting my time looking for any more examples. If you want to please feel free to do so. i.e. you're argument boils down to it's ok to do whatever is necessary to make your business look good and push crap out the door whether or not it meets certain criteria, and then to censor anyone who points out any deficiencies. OK, gotcha.

Your collection of statements, are exactly what I would expect from a marketer with flexible ethical standards, hiding behind the excuse "well, everyone else does it, so its gotta be good..." while providing absolutely zero supporting evidence of your own.

Gorath

February 17th, 2007, 16:33

To take a bit of emotion out of this discussion ... Mo is actually right that it´s normal to post only links to good reviews. The reason is absolutely simple: it´s good business practice to show your chocolate side to potential customers because you need their money to make the next game. There´s nothing mean behind it. Unbiased infos can be found on unbiased sites.

cutterjohn

February 17th, 2007, 19:43

Actually, the way to end this is just to say that company xyz owns site pqr, pays for the bandwidth, administration, etc. and therefore can feel free to do whatever they like with their site.

(I still find the practice of only posting links to 90+% reviews to be questionable, however, but in the end they can behave as they wish because of the above if nothing else.)

Moriendor

February 17th, 2007, 21:55

OK, I don't really want to go on much longer either but I'm curious about this one...

...and then to censor anyone who points out any deficiencies. OK, gotcha.

I think we've been through this several times in various threads (with or without your participation, I don't remember) very recently but could you please provide a link or an official statement that proves your accusation? What I am seeing is that Bethesda has blacklisted certain websites where their company, their employees and their products were a subject of extreme profanity and even outright threats... plus some other really childish stuff like the ESF banning "contests" etc.
No website (to my best knowledge) has been blacklisted just because of some critical comments or a review score that someone at Bethesda found offensive. Please. Get real. I hope you do not seriously believe that the Codex was blacklisted only because of VD's review...

Your collection of statements, are exactly what I would expect from a marketer with flexible ethical standards, hiding behind the excuse "well, everyone else does it, so its gotta be good..." while providing absolutely zero supporting evidence of your own.

I'm not a marketer but if I was or if I had my own company that's trying to sell a product then you can bet your ass that I would do my very best to make the products of the company and the company itself look good. In a position like that you have a responsibility for real lives and real jobs that depend on the well-being of the company.

Whether I personally like the product or whether I agree that my company has a good product or not is secondary in such cases. Ethics might matter in life/death situations or in medicine, genetic or nuclear research etc... but when someone is trying to sell a video game to kids and adults you talk "ethics"? Please.

Well, and the consumer can still make an informed decision about the product. It's not like those negative reviews do not exist. They are just a tad bit harder to find if I wouldn't link to them from the company website but -honestly- any consumer who expects a company to tell them the unmasked truth must be quite the little retard. Anyone with half a brain should usually learn at age 4 when they first watch kiddie TV that not everything in commercials is true.

txa1265

February 19th, 2007, 14:20

(I still find the practice of only posting links to 90+% reviews to be questionable, however, but in the end they can behave as they wish because of the above if nothing else.)

The thing to remember there is that company websites are *marketing*, NOT information. They are not there to provide 'fair and balanced' sources, but to sell you the game. To that extent they *do* want open dialogue, and as many of the people are gamers themselves they want to hear constructive criticism and not to squelch debate. However, ultimately they would be happy with nothing but 'roses and kittens' discussions ... Things that detract from the marketing aspects to a real extent tend to get killed. The official Dungeon Lords forums did this extensively, and linked to quotes and previews that made everything look hunky-dory with the game, as an example.

aries100

February 25th, 2007, 21:09

I know this sort of has nothing to with this, but bear in mind that's what is happening right now at the TES forums might be happening to the Fallout 3
modding sites, too:

Here's a link:

http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=645446

Post # 11 is especially nice to read, imo....

My take on this is that this needs to be stopped right now,
before other companies do the same.

Corwin

February 25th, 2007, 23:46

An interesting read, but way over my head. I think Beth is simply trying to cover their butts!! (Pun intended)

Sorcha Ravenlock

February 25th, 2007, 23:55

Yup, modders have gone from being 'respected and very much wanted members of the community' to 'hackers and creators of adult material'.

I for one am refusing to put any sort of disclaimer up on my site, if Bethesda wants to cover their corporate behinds they can implement a warning screen themselves that states that anything linked of their forum is not under their control or appoval.

Bethesda has behaved outrageously towards the modding community, this is just the tip of the iceberg. If I ever was in doubt if it was worth spending any coin on a Bethesda product again, then this made up my mind towards a most defenite 'no'.
Other sites put up similar disclaimers and warning screens when leaving their sites via links, I am simply not willing to do Bethesda's dirty work for them.

-a very angry modder.

Alrik Fassbauer

February 25th, 2007, 23:58

*browses through the linked thread*

*shakes head*

These are things I have always been wondering about.

One sentence struck me :

By "Monica21" : As for violence, well, this is America, so no disclaimer necessary.

Is the U.S. really THAT violent ?

magerette

February 26th, 2007, 00:12

Pretty much, Alrik. Pretty much. Violence is just another item on the news menu.
We have a shotgun(licensed) in the back room in case somebody decides to kick our door down to fund their meth habit--and we live very far away from the really violent places. ;)

Alrik Fassbauer

February 26th, 2007, 20:37

Weird. Seems so much different to me here ... No-one is allowed to actually bear a weapon except those with a real license for it (and except illegal guns, of course), so no.one needs to have a gun in their house.

Of course, this makes people more defenseless towards robbers, but on the other way we don't have the feeling "something could happen any minute" either. ;)

I once made a theory that so many games use violence as a means to solve problems, because it might be totally normal to use this way in the Number 1 computer/video game manufacturing countries - the USA.

This theory would also say that games produced here in Europe would rather rely on diplomacy (which might appear as "boring" to Americans, I just guess).

I'd like to discuss on this somewhere further on, but I also guess that no-one would accept my theory. So far I have heard only negative responses on it. Either it is totally normal to everyone or I'm totally false with it.

magerette

February 26th, 2007, 21:21

Well I think it's an interesting theory. Here everyone(including our presidential hopeful, MS Clinton) wants to say that violent video games and other media are a large contributing cause of the violence in our society. I like the way you've come at it better. Violence is all around us, so it becomes commonplace. Still, most people( other than criminals) don't solve their day to day problems with violence here either--but they do have that "anything could happen" feeling.

But this probably should be discussed in another place-we've hijacked this a long way from Bethesda....unless they get some terrorist activities from the Fallout fans and angry modders. :)

Alrik Fassbauer

February 26th, 2007, 22:32

Okay. ;)

I'm thinking about opening a new thread ... but I'm not quite sure ...

Glacian

February 27th, 2007, 01:29

I find this whole thing sort of interesting. I'd only heard about the argument from the perspective of the fan sites who are complaining, so I had sided with them... but based on what I'm reading here, I think Bethesda may have been justified in their actions.

These community sites were not acting in a professional manner, so I can see why they'd be blacklisted. They can criticize the company and the games all they want, but there is still a level of professionalism that should be maintained. Of course, they can freely do and say what they want, but if they're going to do that they shouldn't expect support from Bethesda. They have the right to say what they want and Bethesda has the right to pick and choose what sites they support.

I don't believe for a second that this is Bethesda's attempt to silence criticism of their games. Realistically, pretty much EVERYONE that played that game gave it a poor review. Why would they single this site out? It's not because of the negative opinions on the game... it's because of the unprofessional behavior.

There's my two cents I guess.

KazikluBey

February 27th, 2007, 21:40

Realistically, pretty much EVERYONE that played that game gave it a poor review.
Er, over 90% of the published reviews that I've seen gave Oblivion a score of around 90% or higher. The game got an average score of 94.1% according to Gamerankings.com.

aries100

February 28th, 2007, 01:40

Er, over 90% of the published reviews that I've seen gave Oblivion a score of around 90% or higher. The game got an average score of 94.1% according to Gamerankings.com.

I agree that Oblivion got very high scores from reviewers when it was released.
However, most of these reviews talked about how great Oblivion looked, and how great it was that you were able to immerse yourself in --- you guessed it -
the visual fantasy that is Oblivion. [I do think that Eurogamer it a 10/10? and another site gave it a 98 or 99??].

Apparently none of the reviewers played the game long enough to get tired of the annoying pop-ups telling you 'i have found cave x, i should go in' and stuff like that which made me feel like a 5 year being told what to do by my parents.
(and I mean that in the most parental & nicest way).

Apparently the reviewers of Oblivion were to young to remember Ultima IV,
Baldur's Gate 1, the old Might and Magic Games, where - you guessed it - people also walked around (sort of), some shops never closed, other shops were open at certain hours and such things. And they complety, imo, didn't see that the much hyped Radiant AI was just a fancy way of scripting these things in the game from the days of yesteryear.

And I wouldn't quite trust gameranking's list. They have some sites which count more than others when making (or calculating) the average score.

And to get a 94, a game has to be original as well as very near perfection. To me Oblivion hasn't gotten either: It is an interesting, fun and challenging game, and the sidequests in Oblivion are SO much better than any other sidequests in any game I have (yet) seen.

If I were to a score to Oblivion it would probably be around 85 or so.

And perhaps more on topic:

The third party sites wasn't blacklisted by Bethesda. They just couldn't link to
their sites without adding a disclaimer to their sites (which many sitesnow seem to have done).

Anyway, things are cooling down a bit now, and Bethesda is looking into if they can add an automated generic disclaimer.

In the end it got a bit out of hand...when people start calling other people
Nazis and stuff, I think it is time to stop...