PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Sly Fox... but why?
August 4th 2000, 23:46 CEST by andy

Fox Interactive and Monolith officially announced yesterday that Sanity had gone gold. But if you read the press release, you may have noticed the somewhat puzzling announcement that the game "will ship to retail stores nationwide as early as the end of September".

There are a few reasons why this is worth some attention...



The phrase "as early as the end of September" suggests that a game would often take much longer than two months to go from gold to retail. The truth is that some games hit the shelves within a few days, others may take a few weeks, and in some rare cases you might be looking at a month. Two months, while not unheard of, is still a long time, and Fox is apparently trying to hide that.

More importantly, though, why would Fox hold the game back for so long?

One possible answer is that they're confident about the game, so they're giving people plenty of time to read reviews and build up anticipation. Realistically, if Sanity was released now, it would bomb. Two months down the line, after plenty of positive reviews, it might be a best-seller.

The other possible answer is that the Net code isn't up to scratch, and they don't want reviewers to have a chance to play the game online. At the end of a positive single-player review, "we weren't able to test multiplayer" is a lot less damaging than "mutliplayer sucks". If the single player game is great, people might just expect multiplayer to be good too.

This theory is backed up by the fact that the Sanity beta test suffered from a severe lack of servers, so online testing would have been minimal. And reports from people who did test the game online suggest that Net code in the beta version was far from polished. Even if efforts have been made to fix all reported problems, those fixes can't have been widely tested because there was no second phase to the beta test.

We asked Monolith's Jason Hall about this, and here's his response:

Sanity is completely gold (meaning, DONE, FINISHED, COMPLETED) We aren't doing any work on the full version at all. There are no planned patches, or any known need for any type of patch. There are no known or logged bugs in the Fox or Monolith bug database. The only work being done for Sanity at this point is that we are making more extra talents packs here and there.

The netcode is fine. There are no known issues. Sanity has been WELL tested for months. What people are saying is pure speculation.

I'm not sure why Fox isn't just shipping it to the stores now, but I suspect that it may be that they want to make sure Sanity is more widely known about before it goes out. The first magazine ad for it only came out this month! I think they are planning on doing some more marketing first so that there is more mind-share for the game. Most of the non-hardcore gamers out there don't even know Sanity exists.

This is just my theory though. Fox can ship it when they want.

But I assure you, SANITY IS TOTALLY DONE and the netcode works great! You have a copy so you can try it out with some friends if you wish. :)

Reviewers, when they get their copy are more than welcome to play multiplayer Sanity all they want. It will hold up and perform just fine! Review copies are going out to all the online sites and game mags as we speak (which is why you should have yours any second now). They are getting the gold master that WILL be on the shelves. So, I don't know where all this speculation is coming from...

Note: I've not received my copy yet, so I can't make any judgement about the Net code. The question still remains, though: Even if I did have a copy, how could I test it online if there aren't any other players?

C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Sly Fox... but why?

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Baytor"
2000-08-04 23:50:30
baytor@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/baytor
Andy wrote:
<quote>
The other possible answer is that the Net code isn't up to scratch, and they don't want reviewers to have a chance to play the game online. At the end of a positive single-player review, "we weren't able to test multiplayer" is a lot less damaging than "mutliplayer sucks". If the single player game is great, people might just expect multiplayer to be good too.

</quote>
Whoo-hoo, that's the Andy we all know and love.

Stick it to The Man!

I... AM BAYTOR!!!!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#2 by "Tom Cleghorn"
2000-08-04 23:54:22
tc10@st-andrewsspam?tryit.ac.uk http://www.fisty.com/~tom
It wouldn't surprise me if this were merely delays in the publisher's system. You're judging this by other standards. FAKK2 went gold last week, and it's on some shelves now - but Activision (it <i>is</i> Activision, right?) is by no means a major player outside the industry. Fox, on the other hand, is an <i>enormous</i> organisation, of the kind that thrives on bureaucracy and red tape.
That's my take, anyway.
#3 by "Baytor"
2000-08-04 23:55:02
baytor@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/baytor
Okay, now that the race for first is out of the way, a more reasoned approach.

I sincerely doubt that Monolith would release another game that they KNEW had laddy net-play.  You'd just as well put a sign over their office doors, saying "GAME OVER."

If there was a problem with the netcode, I don't think FOX would be holding up the release of the gold copy, they'd be pushing for Monolith to fix the damn thing in the amount of time they're delaying the release.

It would seem that Jason Hall was doing the "when it's done" type thing (although not has annoyingly as George Broussard does it), and FOX simply didn't know when the game was going to be released, therefore, did not advertise it.  I would assume that the delay in release is simply to prime the pump now that they have a completed game.

I... AM BAYTOR!!!!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#4 by "Andy"
2000-08-04 23:59:17
andy@planetcrap.com
Heh, as soon as I go back to a less formal style of writing, you automatically start making assumptions about my own opinion again. :-)

And don't ask, because you <i>know</i> I won't tell you yet...
#5 by "ShuflY"
2000-08-05 00:13:44
mike@shufly.net http://www.shufly.net
Hmmm, when I first heard of this I was just assuming that the publisher wanted to hold onto it until the Christmas shopping season started.  I don't know if we'll ever hear the official word on this, but it should be interesting...

--
Michael "ShuflY" Shumake
http://www.gamers.com
http://www.shufly.net<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#6 by "Sgt.Seb"
2000-08-05 00:20:57
Hard to beleive that there is no bugs at all in Sanity.  According to Jason Hall.  Must be like the first game in history to achieve that, even super-tested games like SC have patches...maybe a positive spinoff of receiving so much flak for Blood2? :)
#7 by "Baytor"
2000-08-05 00:22:57
baytor@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/baytor
<b>#6</b> "Sgt.Seb" wrote...
<QUOTE>

Hard to beleive that there is no bugs at all in Sanity. According to Jason Hall. Must be like the first game in history to achieve that, even super-tested games like SC have patches...maybe a positive spinoff of receiving so much flak for Blood2? :) </QUOTE>

There's a difference between no bugs, and no known bugs.  I'm sure once its released there's going to be the standard flurry of minor bugs found from players doing weird things or hardware problems.  That stuff is standard, and I'm sure they're expecting that.

I... AM BAYTOR!!!!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#8 by "Warmonger [AI]"
2000-08-05 00:29:11
warmonger87@hotmail.com
I was talking to Jace about the 2 month wait, and he told me that he had no idea why it wouldn't be shipping for so long. I made my own hypothesis, which was that there just wasn't enough marketing for Sanity to make it reasonable to ship. This really sucks that Fox didn't start the hype machine early, or at least a little earlier, but then again, at least Sanity won't have the huge expectations tagged around it like Shogo and Blood 2 did. That's one definite upside to not hyping it too much. I believe Jason Hall when he says that they didn't find any bugs, because from what I understand, they've been bug-testing the game for a long time now. So, I expect that, while it will of course have some bugs, Sanity should have so few that it will make Blood 2 seem like a huge mistake, which it was. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#9 by "Apache"
2000-08-05 00:31:07
apache@voodooextreme.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
anyone consider that it's simply <b>cheaper</b>?

(Maybe Fox is a cheap publisher?)
#10 by "alien8"
2000-08-05 00:32:09
alien@planetunreal.com http://www.planetunreal.com
<b>#3</b> "Baytor" wrote...
<QUOTE>
I sincerely doubt that Monolith would release another game that they KNEW had laddy net-play. You'd just as well put a sign over their office doors, saying "GAME OVER."
</QUOTE>

Or else that sign might say "Unreal".  We all know the unfortunate state of Unreal's net play on release, and that's what stays inked into people's minds.  How many people know that by the 224 patch, Unreal's netcode was <i>almost</i> as good as UT's?

Not many.

-alien8
Enjoying PlanetMonoli... errr PlanetCrap ;)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#11 by "Warmonger [AI]"
2000-08-05 00:35:03
warmonger87@hotmail.com
That's always possible, Apache, but just how would it be significantly cheaper?

I've got another idea. People might think that Sanity is an RPG, and hearing RPG, right now they're going to think Diablo 2. No ones going to buy Sanity unless it is so much better than D2 that it'll win Game of the Year. I love Sanity, but I know that it isn't good enough for that. Actually, this ties back to the marketing because if Fox doesn't drill it into peoples heads that Sanity does <b>not</b> compete with Diablo 2, then people just won't buy it. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#12 by "Baytor"
2000-08-05 00:36:35
baytor@yahoo.com http://www.geocities.com/baytor
<b>#10</b> "alien8" wrote...
<QUOTE>Or else that sign might say "Unreal". We all know the unfortunate state of
Unreal's net play on release, and that's what stays inked into people's minds.
How many people know that by the 224 patch, Unreal's netcode was <I>almost</I>
as good as UT's?

</QUOTE>
The situation is a bit different.

Epic released <i>one</i> game with laggy netplay.  Monolith has released <i>two</i>.  A third for them would be disasterous.

I... AM BAYTOR!!!!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#13 by "Jason Hall"
2000-08-05 00:37:15
Hall@Lith.com http://www.lith.com
Sgt. Seb -

I said that there are no KNOWN unaddressed bugs in the Sanity bug database (which Fox and Monolith use to track open bugs). Every single bug that has been found in Sanity has been addressed.

That is NOT saying that there are no bugs.

Please don't misinterpret.

Over the course of testing Sanity, there were 5687 bugs logged into the bug database.

ALL of them have been addressed. Every one. (This is where 3 months of pure polish-time comes in!)

The final version of Sanity was quadruple checked for all these (and new) bugs before being called "Gold." At the very end, the final version was also tested (multiplayer and single player) by Fox's entire QA department for over 160 hours STRAIGHT without ONE bug or error discovered.

So the game is as solid as we can reasonably make it - and it has been tested - and there are no KNOWN unaddressed bugs in the Sanity bug base.

But that is not saying that Sanity is 100% free of bugs. We just can't find any more and have exhausted our reasonable means.

Jace
#14 by "Whisp"
2000-08-05 00:48:25
whisp_@hotmail.com
<b>#5</b> "ShuflY" wrote...
<QUOTE>

Hmmm, when I first heard of this I was just assuming that the publisher wanted to hold onto it until the Christmas shopping season started. I don't know if we'll ever hear the official word on this, but it should be interesting... </QUOTE>

That was my first thought as well.

And Jason, I'm impressed by what you say you've done.  I hope the release lives up to the effort it sounds like you put into it.  I still haven't tried the demo yet, been too busy for new games, but it and kiss are on my list of games to investigate.

-Whisp
#15 by "Chris Johnson"
2000-08-05 00:51:42
Tom (#2):

FYI, FAKK2 is not an Activision published product, It's G.o.D.
#16 by "Andy"
2000-08-05 00:57:08
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#13</b>, Jason Hall:
<QUOTE>
Over the course of testing Sanity, there were 5687 bugs logged into the bug database.
</QUOTE>
I've got an idea that could either improve Monolith's image enormously, or could do you a lot of damage. How brave do you feel? ;-)

You said that all the bugs were entered into a database. Presumably, that means it would be fairly trivial for you to run off a text file with a complete list of all the bugs you found.

How about you do that, and make it available for download? (I'll put it on PlanetCrap if you want, so it doesn't take any of Lith's bandwidth.)

The reason for doing this would be that if any bugs *are* found in Sanity when it comes out, people will be able to check if those bugs were in the database.

Seriously, I think this is a good idea. But also seriously, I'm not going to attach any significance to you deciding not to do it, because you've got no obligation.

Personally I'm giving Monolith the benefit of the doubt nowadays, but... ya know, there <i>are</i> reasons to be cynical, and I'm sure you realise that.

/me throws down the gauntlet!
#17 by "Darkseid-[D!]"
2000-08-05 01:02:57
darkseid-d@planetcrap.com http://www.captured.com/boomstick
alien8, its not a case of how many people knew


more, how many people _cared_




Ds<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#18 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-08-05 01:08:05
sbauman@adelphia.net http://homepages.together.net/~sbauman/
The old thinking (which Fox apparently uses) is not to release games in July and August, because people are on vacations, out in the sun, blah blah blah, hence waiting until September.

Obviously Blizzard has shown you can release a game in July and sell a load o' copies. But they're Blizzard. The rules don't apply to them.

How many games came out in July, and how many are scheduled for August. Looking over the reviews we've done in the last month, the answer is, "Not many."

---
"My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#19 by "alien8"
2000-08-05 01:09:00
alien@planetunreal.com http://www.planetunreal.com
<b>#17</b> "Darkseid-[D!]" wrote...
<QUOTE>

alien8, its not a case of how many people knew


more, how many people _cared_ </QUOTE>

Its unfortunate, but what you said is true.  By the time 224 rolled around, and the mess that the previous two patches made with save games, network compatibility, as well as map and mod compatibility, most of the Unreal community kinda gave up.  It was really too bad to, b/c like I said, the netcode was great by 224, and the Unreal engine remains to this day one of the easiest to modify/map for.

Look at me - stuck in the 'good old days' ;)

-alien8<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#20 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-08-05 01:10:08
sbauman@adelphia.net http://homepages.together.net/~sbauman/
<b>#16</b> "Andy" wrote...
<QUOTE>
Personally I'm giving Monolith the benefit of the doubt nowadays, but... ya know, there <I>are</I> reasons to be cynical, and I'm sure you realise that.
</QUOTE>
Jeez, you'd think Monolith is the only company that ever released a buggy game. Most companies have released 1-2 (or more) bug-riddled games, and none have faced this sort of scrutiny...

I say who cares? If the game's buggy, they'll pay the price. If it's not, they'll be successful... maybe.

---
"My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#21 by "Tom Cleghorn"
2000-08-05 01:14:27
tc10@st-andrewsspam?tryit.ac.uk http://www.fisty.com/~tom
<b>Chris Johnson:</b>
Thanks :) My point stands even better now, since God is even less important than Activision. Ahem, no offence, God-folks :)

...actually, that's got to be a great quote of the nanosecond :)
#22 by "matthew allen"
2000-08-05 01:22:00
matthew@lith.com http://www.lith.com
Actually Andy's idea is interesting. Not neccessarily in a scrutinize Monolith sort of way, but more in the trainspotter, geeky, 'i wanna know the lame stuff they do during bug fix' way [<I>ok thats just the way i would see it</I>]. I know as a developer it would be fun to pour through another devleopers bug database after i played the game [as long as it was searchable]. However as a developer of Sanity I'm not quite sure i want to be that much under the microscope.

matt
Lead Artist, Sanity
#23 by "Andy"
2000-08-05 01:23:12
andy@planetcrap.com
Steve,

In case you missed the first 500 posts in the last thread, there are still people baying for Monolith's blood. I'd prefer not to see that happening.

I'll go after developers when I think they're doing something wrong, but I'll also stick up for the ones that I think are being unfairly persecuted.

It's really none of your business. So, uhm... hush.
#24 by ""
2000-08-05 01:34:30
<i>Thinking...</i>
#25 by "Desiato"
2000-08-05 01:37:26
desiato_hotblack@hotmail.com http://www.spew2.com/
What is interesting is -- does FOX bear any liability for screwing up the release?

Lets say the marketing campaign doesn't do what they think it will -- for instance, what if the peak demand is right *NOW* versus later.

Then delaying it is a big mistake.

Who are they to determine when public curiosity/demand are at a peak? Isn't that a bit hard to determine in any quantitative way?

I suppose you could say the liability is the loss of profit, but shouldn't it extend to the point where the developer should have a recourse if the publisher botches the job?

Just a few questions...

Desiato
#26 by "G-Man"
2000-08-05 01:48:14
jonmars@shiftlock.org http://www.shiftlock.org
<b>#25</b> "Desiato" wrote...
<QUOTE>Who are they to determine when public curiosity/demand are at a peak? Isn't that a bit hard to determine in any quantitative way? </QUOTE>
Demand is measured by the press coverage a game is recieving.

<b>#25</b> "Desiato" wrote...
<QUOTE>I suppose you could say the liability is the loss of profit, but shouldn't it extend to the point where the developer should have a recourse if the publisher botches the job?</QUOTE>
This is all covered in their contracts.

 - [g.man]<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#27 by "George Broussard"
2000-08-05 02:13:59
georgeb@3drealms.com
Steve,

<quote>Obviously Blizzard has shown you can release a game in July and sell a load o' copies. But they're Blizzard. The rules don't apply to them. </quote>

And Duke 3D shipped in May and went on to sell like 700K unit that year alone.

I've always told publishers that they are clueless if they think time of year matters.  it certainly doesn't matter for good games.

And if nothing else you WANT to be alone.  Blizzard releasing StarCraft in March was brillinat and I hope they skipped Xmas on purpose.

I know we would skip Xmas and choose to polish a couple months if it meant shipping anytime in December.  Why be 1/200 new games when you can wait a bit and be 1/10 games?

Publishers are freakin' stooopid people.  I've told you that before ;)

George Broussard, 3D Realms
#28 by "Trebor Nosnibor"
2000-08-05 02:17:55
He said all the bugs have been addressed.  I work in QA and from my experince that could mean any of the following:

bug is fixed and closed
bug is not reproducable and closed
bug is not critical and deffered to a patch/sp
bug is a duplicate

The list goes on and on, those are just a few.  The point is when it comes down to crunch time all bugs are sorted out into one cateogry or another so that, on paper, the product can ship.  Something like the equivalent of creative accounting, if you will.  Saying all bugs have been addressed doesn't really mean much and has little relation to the quality of a product or the number of bugs actually fixed.  Quality software meets certain standads for quality, it isn't based on how many bugs have been addressed.
#29 by "Ghost in my Shell"
2000-08-05 02:26:22
George is right.

If I had a game (hahah in a million years) and I wanted to sell it, it would be right now during this dry spell of gaming. Theres been about 5 decent games in the past few months compaired to the 20 that come out in November and December all competing with each other and console gaming...
#30 by "George Broussard"
2000-08-05 02:27:37
georgeb@3drealms.com
Desiato,

<quote>I suppose you could say the liability is the loss of profit, but shouldn't it extend to the point where the developer should have a recourse if the publisher botches the job?</quote>

You'd think so, but sadly no.  They can kill a game with no ads (of little marketing) and just put it out.  Or they can discount it so it makes no money, or use it as a loss leader etc.  They're done now.  Didn't sell?  You didn't make money?  Tough shit.

Publisher accountability?  There is none.  How is a developer gonna afford to sue them when they don't have the clout to force key issues into contracts to begin with.

And the same developers can't force key issues in a contract because most publishers will just walk, and the developer can't risk losing them.  It's probably a lot like porn films.  A female actress wants too much?  Bye.  There are 20 more standing in line.

George Broussard, 3D Realms
#31 by "Andy"
2000-08-05 02:44:36
andy@planetcrap.com
There's a good story that would have been relevant to what George said about female porn stars, but I can't find the site where I read it and I can't remember enough of the details to even tell it as an anecdote.

But anyway...

While looking for the story, I found an adult films news site called "Stunning Curves", and it's... well, have a look for yourself. ;-)

<a href="http://www.stunningcurves.com/">Stunning Curves</a>

Hmm, looks strangely familiar!
#32 by "Sgt Hulka"
2000-08-05 03:01:10
Sgt_Hulka@Hulka.com http://www.hulka.com
<b>#30</b> "George Broussard" wrote...
<QUOTE>It's probably a lot like porn films. A female actress wants too much? Bye. There are 20 more standing in line.
</QUOTE>

It's always like that in my porn films, the chicks always want too much of Hulka, I have to turn them away.  Also, my audition lines are longer than 20, more like 20 zillion!<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#33 by "Jason Hall"
2000-08-05 03:06:45
Hall@Lith.com http://www.lith.com
Andy -

I entertained your idea of releasing the bug list (which is a novel idea), but I really want Sanity to stand on its own. I want the product to be judged on what it presents and how it presents itself, rather than having some gamer scour some list somewhere to check to see if a bug was truly addressed (only to discover that it actually WAS). Fox has already done that, and so have we (for months!). That's what we are supposed to do!
I don't want Sanity to be applauded for living up to it's buglist, I want it to be applauded for living up to its promise.

Sanity needs to stand on its own. The full version that people get their hands on needs to go out without any magical list that somehow tries to prove and talk people into thinking that Sanity is stable and well tested. The proof will be in the pudding. The game will speak for itself. In my opinion, gamers don't need our bug database to judge whether we have done a good job or not.

Know what I mean?

Jace
#34 by "Warmonger [AI]"
2000-08-05 03:08:32
warmonger87@hotmail.com
Yeah, but thanks to Fox, we don't get to see that actual product until late September at best. Well, since my birthday's on the 23 of Sep. maybe that's a good thing ;)<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#35 by "Andy"
2000-08-05 03:38:36
andy@planetcrap.com
Jason,

Fair enough. I just hope Sanity is as good as you say it is. :-)
#36 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-08-05 03:39:55
sbauman@adelphia.net http://homepages.together.net/~sbauman/
<b>#23</b> "Andy" wrote...
<QUOTE>
In case you missed the first 500 posts in the last thread, there are still people baying for Monolith's blood. I'd prefer not to see that happening.
</QUOTE>
What, five people? Ten? Fifty?

Monolith could choose to ignore them all and it wouldn't cost them a single sale. Those people have already made up their minds.

---
"My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#37 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-08-05 03:41:08
sbauman@adelphia.net http://homepages.together.net/~sbauman/
<b>#25</b> "Desiato" wrote...
<QUOTE>
Who are they to determine when public curiosity/demand are at a peak? Isn't that a bit hard to determine in any quantitative way?
</QUOTE>
They could look at sales figures per month for all games and determine that sales are lower in July and August, meaning there's less store traffic, meaning they may not sell enough in that one-month window to generate re-orders come Oct/Nov when traffic REALLY picks up.

---
"My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#38 by "Andy"
2000-08-05 03:49:13
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#36</b>, Steve Bauman:
<QUOTE>
Monolith could choose to ignore them all and it wouldn't cost them a single sale. Those people have already made up their minds.
</QUOTE>
A few little voices can make a lot of noise on the Net.

--

Off-topic, I need some advice!

What's the deal with getting advance copies of games for review? Do you just write to the developer or publisher and ask them to send you a copy? What sort of proof do you need that you're not just trying to get games for free?

With both Sanity and BC3K on the way, and my decision (following the previous thread) to quickly set up another site so I can post the reviews there and then just link to them, I'm thinking that I'd quite like to start doing reviews on a regular basis.

The only reviews I ever read online are those at CGO, but even those aren't quite how I think reviews should be done. Short, sharp and to the point, that's what I'm looking for. Be honest: When was the last time you read all the way through an online review without skipping *any* of it?

So yeah, anyway... advice?
#39 by "Warmonger [AI]"
2000-08-05 03:54:01
warmonger87@hotmail.com
As for Sanity, I'm guessing that you could just e-mail Jace because he obviously knows you. Now, if you do get it, make sure to tell me right away so I can set up a gaming review site so I can get Sanity right now :) Seriously though, just send him a quick note and he should respond quickly with details or something. Or, he might just read your post and then answer here. I'd e-mail him about it anyway though.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#40 by "Apache"
2000-08-05 03:56:53
apache@voodooextreme.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
<quote>What's the deal with getting advance copies of games for review? Do you just write to the developer or publisher and ask them to send you a copy? What sort of proof do you need that you're not just trying to get games for free? </quote>

publishers handle review copy requests.


<quote>The only reviews I ever read online are those at CGO, but even those aren't quite how I think reviews should be done. Short, sharp and to the point, that's what I'm looking for. Be honest: When was the last time you read all the way through an online review without skipping *any* of it? </quote>

Magazine reviews are usually short, sharp and to the point, that's because they are limited by pages. Online, people expect at least 800 words... (Or they get nasty)
#41 by "Ze Reinstag"
2000-08-05 04:07:28
Reinstag@berlin.com http://www.propagandic.com
I think this is still too early to be commented on-- but, where does Monolith's support stand for the soon-to-be Sanity-MOD community? Will it just serve up the entrails of the game source and throw out a toolset or two? Or will it back up its commitment with meaty tutorials, servers, etc?

-Ze Rein<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#42 by "Andy"
2000-08-05 04:08:47
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#40</b>, Apache:
<QUOTE>
publishers handle review copy requests.
</QUOTE>
Bugger. :-(

I've no chance then.

At least with developers, some of them probably know who I am and will realise I'm legit, but I doubt any publishers will have heard of me.

BTW, on the same subject: Would people be suspicious if a site *only* gave good reviews? See, my plan is only to review games that I like, or at the very least where the good outweighs the bad. It's just personal preference, because I don't like saying bad things about other people's work.
#43 by "Warmonger [AI]"
2000-08-05 04:14:22
warmonger87@hotmail.com
Reinstag, I don't know if you know this or not, but neither the tools nor the source will be released for Sanity. Period. It would make cheating too easy and also make the talent pack idea impossible for Monolith to work with.

Andy, I'd say that a positive review site would be perfectly fine, as long as you mention on the front page that you only post reviews of games that you like. Otherwise, people will say that the developers are paying you off, etc. But, that's a good idea for a site. Maybe you'd post your future interviews there? I think you said that already though.<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#44 by "Ze Reinstag"
2000-08-05 04:15:01
Reinstag@berlin.com http://www.propagandic.com
Hey... you know.. maybe just maybe they waiting until they are approved for the usage of the X-MEN liscense?? Talent Pack..hint,hint.

-Ze Rein<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#45 by "Andy"
2000-08-05 04:17:54
andy@planetcrap.com
<b>#43</b>, Warmonger [AI]:
<QUOTE>
Andy, I'd say that a positive review site would be perfectly fine, as long as you mention on the front page that you only post reviews of games that you like.
</QUOTE>
Heh, I never think of the obvious stuff. ;-)

That's what I'll do. Simple!

Probably on the bottom of each review, not the top of the front page, but yeah, I'll definitely use some sort of disclaimer.
#46 by "Apache"
2000-08-05 04:18:36
apache@voodooextreme.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
<quote>BTW, on the same subject: Would people be suspicious if a site *only* gave good reviews? See, my plan is only to review games that I like, or at the very least where the good outweighs the bad. It's just personal preference, because I don't like saying bad things about other people's work.</quote>

You can do whatever you want. It's best not to dwell on how others percieve you. Just try to be yourself.
#47 by "Warmonger [AI]"
2000-08-05 04:21:55
warmonger87@hotmail.com
Why am I sensing that some trolls are gonna come by and ruin this thread? We almost got to post 100 before they came on the previous thread, and before that we were having some good discussion. Well, we're having good discussion right now, and I'm starting to fear for the health of this thread. <I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#48 by "Ze Reinstag"
2000-08-05 04:24:09
Reinstag@berlin.com http://www.propagandic.com
Trolls ph33r NOLF, so lets talk about the shell casings from that title, I dont know about you, but in all of the screenshots of NOLF I've seen, the shell casings aren't upto snuff as they are in Monolith's previous fps titles :)

-Ze Rein<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
#49 by "Apache"
2000-08-05 04:26:55
apache@voodooextreme.com http://www.voodooextreme.com
offtopic: I find the kinder, gentler topics on PC strangely soothing for some reason.
#50 by "Steve Bauman"
2000-08-05 05:01:23
sbauman@adelphia.net http://homepages.together.net/~sbauman/
<b>#38</b> "Andy" wrote...
<QUOTE>
A few little voices can make a lot of noise on the Net.
</quote>
True, but I suspect the majority of people that buy games don't frequent Net message boards about games. Unless CNN picks up the Monolith story, I doubt most people wandering into their local game story will have even the foggiest idea of the "Blood II issue."

<quote>Do you just write to the developer or publisher and ask them to send you a copy? What sort of proof do you need that you're not just trying to get games for free? </quote>
Typically the publishers handle it, but developers might send you product.

However, it's a chicken/egg thing. To get copies of games from most publishers, you need a heavily trafficked site first. To get a heavily trafficked site, you need content.

---
"My life is a patio of fun."<I><B></B></I><I></I><I></I>
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Sly Fox... but why?

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]