Printable View
We need to raise awareness of the lack of support from CA for RTW. Please join me in writing an email expressing your dissappointment and disatisfaction.
This is the only way we are going to be able to make sure our concerns are aired.
Computer Games Magazine:
Editor in Chief
Steve Bauman
sbauman@cgonline.com
Computer Gaming World
cgwletters@ziffdavis.com
Count me in.
Note, however, that we need some way of grouping our messages. Combining them into one is a bad idea, since that will only require one quick click to remove, but a bunch of scattered e-mails isn't very coherent.
Perhaps we should have a petition, asking the magazines to include an article on the state of things with Creative Assembly and Rome: Total War. The problem with this is that petitions simply don't work, and we could only come up with a few hundred signatures anyway. In fact, I've noticed in such matters that even when there are a few hundred people who complain, only a few dozen actually care enough to even sign something.
I think that getting an opinion article written in Computer Games Magazine would work. But it shouldn't focus too much on what the problems are with the game, but CA's lack of good customer service. And that should tie in to a larger story about other companies in the gaming industry. It'd be great to link what's going on with RTW to a bigger trend.
Getting a gamespy opinion article is a good idea too. That would mean something since Fargo, one of thier editors, is a TW nut.
When reviewing of game patching policies becomes a standard in game magazines, it would be the day when developers and publishers would start caring more for bugs.
I mean really, dynamics of gaming industry in last 5-6 years is so great that games have more and more bugs then ever at realse. Now, out-of-box rewiew is not enough to get proper opinion of the game. Long term support plays important role too. Bad long-tem support gives bad game.
It pretty much assumed that games will be buggy at realse, only customers don't know how long will game be supported.
I mean we have games that have up to 2 month patch
support, games with showstoper bugs that not get fixed several months after relase, bugs that break heaviliy advetized features of the game, patches that introduce new bugs which never get fixed, etc...
It's a whole jungle out there.
Oftentimes it is the publisher, not the developer, who decides when to release a patch, or when to release a ship date.
More often than not, the publisher and the developer have completely opposite ideas of when to ship or when to patch. Case in point: Ultima IX was a total bug fest when it first came out, but it was not Origin's fault. They wanted to delay shipping until the kinks were worked out. EA, on the other hand, wanted to ship for the holiday season, and thus the developer could do nothing but watch an unfinished product ship too early.
Please give CA the benefit of the doubt. I support awareness, but you need to also focus on Activision, not just CA, for the problems. Activision, after all, is pulling the strings of the CA puppet.
Well both publishers and developers have share of responsability.
Publishers want to relase game as soon as possible and reduce expenses after post-relase.
Developers want to get their next project going so they could earn more money.
It's all about money.
Kel,Quote:
Originally Posted by kekvitirae
We can agree regardless of whose fault it is, that RTW is not being properly supported and that the user base has been let down. Good to hear from you. I still have your MTW mod on my PC..
i'll try and write my letters this weekend.
E-Mails sent
BTW, i also recommend writing to gamespot and IGN
looks like this is one of the last recourses we have
I recommend going for the letter to the editor types, too (unless you are and I'm confused). These are what will get read by the readers of the magazine, and not just the editors.
Crazed Rabbit
Try GameInformer. That's the magazine linked to GameStop. My District manager told me that the circulation ranks 25 in the nation. (with all the subscriptions I sell, it had better.)
GAME INFORMER MAGAZINE
PUBLISHER
Cathy Preston
cathy@gameinformer.com
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Andy McNamara
andy@gameinformer.com
EXECUTIVE EDITOR
Andrew Reiner
reiner@gameinformer.com
SENIOR ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Matt Helgeson
matt@gameinformer.com
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Matthew Kato
kato@gameinformer.com
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Lisa Mason
lisa@gameinformer.com
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Jeremy Voss
jeremy@gameinformer.com
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Adam Biessener
adam@gameinformer.com
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Joe Juba
joe@gameinformer.com
GAME INFORMER ONLINE
MANAGING EDITOR
Billy Berghammer
billy@gameinformer.com
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Chris Cook
chris@gameinformer.com
PRODUCTION
ART DIRECTOR
Thomas Blustin
tom@gameinformer.com
PRODUCTION DIRECTOR
Curtis Fung
curtis@gameinformer.com
PRODUCTION ASSISTANT
Rachel Nimerfroh
rachel@gameinformer.com
ADVERTISING SALES
VICE PRESIDENT ADVERTISING SALES
SAN FRANCISCO
Doug Faust
doug@gameinformer.com
DIRECTOR OF MARKETING AND MIDWEST/
EAST COAST SALES MANAGER
MINNEAPOLIS
Rob Borm
rob@gameinformer.com
SOUTHWEST REGIONAL SALES MANAGER
LOS ANGELES
Marc Minasian
marc@gameinformer.com
ADVERTISING COORDINATOR
MINNEAPOLIS
Amy Arnold
amy@gameinformer.com
CIRCULATION
CIRCULATION MANAGER
Paul Anderson
paul@gameinformer.com
INFORMATION SYSTEMS MANAGER
Paul Hedgpeth
paulhedgpeth@gameinformer.com
I really think forum protest idea should be done first (if both org and twcenter agree).
I've posted emails on the following forums:
Strategy Informer
Wargamer
Definately send letters to Computer Gaming World. Of all the PC magazines, they are definately the least biased. They were one of the few people to actually bring up some of R:TW's problems in their review of it, unlike every other review, which hailed it as the best RTS ever.
i second the recommendation of CGW. also, gamespot (online) is very closely affiliated with them too.
again, also a reminder about IGN, if only because of its popularity.
I have been a suscriber to CGW for over 10 years.
Jeff Green the main editor (now) of CGW used to reply to my e-mails, when i was recommending him what game to review or bring attention to in future articles. Once he was gonna send me deus ex, because i asked him, but i bought it before he sent it. I think i'm gonna write him again, he really listens guys. But i would also recommend to write to other editors in that magazine. CGW is the best PCmag IMO.
hopefully this thread can be kept open, as i think it should be less sensitive than the amazon/review concept.
There is nothing wrong with having people contact reviewers and complain about the current situation with CA.Quote:
Originally Posted by tai4ji2x
Personally, I don't see such 1star reviewes fair.
For example, I see how I could give it 3stars since it has bad AI routine (due to bugs), and thus lowers replayablitiy.
But I would never give it 1star.
I would not spend that much time on game if I had such oppinion.
Also, I don't like reasoning that it's worth a few stars, but still give it just one, to make it easier to lower average score.
On the other hand, I'm sure there are many 5 star reviews by people who had not played enough to run into the list of bugs.
p.s. If didn't use your Bug-Fixer, my generals would all be Scarface! It was driving me CRAZY!
Leave the Amazon debate out of this thread please, or it will be closed.
ok...
why do mods on so many internet forums in general go about moderating in this way? ~:confused: why not just edit the offending thread and issue a warning to the individual? then if that member persists, ban him/her and then subsequently delete or annotate those posts with your course of action? i find that to be a much better way of maintaining an atmosphere of open discussion rather than outright closing entire threads - which i think just ends up stifling dialogue more than the offending posts ever could in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catiline
just MHO
Catiline has expressed his opinion that the .org should not appear to support a campaign of negative reviews on Amazon or anywhere else. That is his right, and I support it. More than that, I agree with it. There should not be a campaign. If you like the game, review it favorably, if not, unfavorably. Or not. Do whatever you and you alone feel is right. Just be aware that these options exist for you to express your opinions in places other than forums.
Catiline, I hope you will take this in the spirit it was intended: a sincere effort to help stop the debate over reviews. Let's all agree to disagree about them and leave it at that.
I think we should all be respectful of the Mods right to do their work as they see fit. If you have questions, you should write to the mod and ask them, but don't make a public thread the place for this conversation. That kind of action is a provocation for the mod to close the thread.
Catiline has made it clear that this whole subject is thin ice, and off topic content will not be tolerated. So please, if you want the discussion to continue, try to keep it to what will be acceptable so the thread can go on. Even with that, I believe this thread's days are severely numbered.
that's the thing... why the impulse, seemingly common within so many of us, to just outright close the thread? why not just delete or heavily edit or at least annotate the offending posts? eh... whatever. i'll shut up (see what i mean about stifling?).Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Celt
I think you have to keep in mind that game magazines are not impartial. They have a vested interest in giving a game the highest rating that appears credible because they get advertising revenue from the companies that publish the games. That's why Rome v1.0 averaged a 93% rating from the magazines. Even with the remaining gameplay issues, magazine ratings of Rome v1.2 would probably be even higher than 93%.