Referee Stops Contest (2)
Let me add a couple of notes about what I wrote yesterday.First off, I didn't mean to imply that developers couldn't criticize reviews of their game--certainly, they can. If a reviewer complains about missing functionality that is actually in the game, or writes something that is objectively not true, then a developer has every right to challenge what's been written.
Here's the thing, though. In the process of challenging the review, the developer/designer/etc. has to take the high road. Period. It's absolutely senseless to do anything else. No personal attacks, no smug comments, no angry denunciations, no conspiracy charges. Here's why: as soon as the focus is on their behavior instead of their game, they're finished.
It's the same thing in company forums. I can't even tell you how many times I've seen company employees arguing with posters on their own forums, and I mean "arguing" in the sense of losing control and making personal attacks. There is no way that will EVER work to a developer's advantage.
I'm absolutely certain that viral posters from other companies actually go into a competitor's forum for the sole purpose of inciting a riot. Here's the thing, though--most companies already have viral posters in their own forums solely for the purpose of praising their games. On the whole, that should be somewhere near a wash.
In this particular case, if Cirulis wanted to challenge Tom Chick's review, he should have looked for factual errors. He should have looked at past reviews to see if Tom Chick has ever scored a game lower than all other reviewers. He also should have looked to see if Chick's criticisms were similar to the ones found in other reviews of the game. Do most reviewers have similar objections to the game, or did Chick's objections come totally out of left field? Those are all legitimate avenues of inquiry for any review of any game.
Making it personal, though, is guaranteed to fail.
<< Home