Shogun has responded to the "patch campaign" over at the com.
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...ID=24704.topic
Shogun has responded to the "patch campaign" over at the com.
http://p223.ezboard.com/fshoguntotal...ID=24704.topic
I don't think you should post about the com here at org...The mods have (rightly) said many times that other forums aren't a good topic.
I think we all know the campaign got their attention. There's about 50 NEW reviews by now - if the same response happens to their XP they will be in trouble - so for their sakes I hope they won't fight their own customers and instead do proper QA and think about after-sales service.
I encourage everyone to review the game: positive, negative, however they want - it can only help consumers and offer valuable feed-back to CA.
I'm in manufacturing myself, and personally, I almost like to see negative feedback on my products, because then I can fix a problem that probably has affected way more people than I realize. Also, you can see what bothers the consumer - not always what you think.
This is not a thread about the com. It's about Shogun's response to the patch campaign, which I'm sure will be of interest to the org community.Originally Posted by HarunTaiwan
I also think Shogun's response is a legitimate matter of debate at the .org.
There is one really interesting twist in Shogun's post:
The Shogun:
"I see absolutely no reason to let individuals who are set on damaging the TW series (no matter how good their declared intentions) continue posting here. Why would we encourage such behaviour on a board that we pay to keep running? Continued destructive posting will result in the individuals concerned being banned."
I do not surf a lot the .com, so I can only imagine what "destructive posting" should mean.
But if it's only about opinions, then I don't think that these should be conditioned - positively or negatively - by a "we pay for what we want to listen, so start singing" philosophy. It kind of worries me that somebody at CA can think like this.
Of course there has been a lot of criticism lately towards RTW, but there is also a lot of praising. As always, the truth might be somewhere at the middle, and I assume CA and Activision are able to correctly identify where truth stands in this controversy.![]()
"Whose motorcycle is this?", "It's a chopper, baby.", "Whose chopper is this?", "Zed's.", "Who's Zed?", "Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead." - Butch and Fabienne ride off into the sunset in Pulp Fiction.
Hmmmm, good point on the thread.
Regarding CA/Sega figuring out "the truth"
There is only one truth, and that is if you anger your customer or damage your own reputation in any way (be it your fault or not) there are often consequences.
Read through this article about campus IT service and see if anythings fit the current situation. See if any of their suggestions have been implemented.
http://staff.valpo.edu/myohe/papers/02repu/02repud.htm
Last edited by HarunTaiwan; 04-12-2005 at 10:58.
Honestly would you allow people to actively campaign against you on your forum? I can't see why CA has to put up with that. Yeah they won't patch it, but that doesn't make it a right to be allowed to work against them. No honest company would allow that.
You would also get kicked out of a store if you tried to do the same thing there. Where is the difference?
Now I might not agree with how this is handled but I see the Shogun as tied on both hands here.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Kraxis,
Many companies now specifically have websites and forums for people to complain about their products so they can catch problems and fix them.
If you have any kind of campaign against your company aside from a lone crazy, you've alienated customers somehow and should review your policies.
I would welcome anyone interested in this topic to check out last week's Economist's - about how the internet makes consumer the King.
Originally Posted by Kraxis
I work in a media company.
This company has a web site and, of course, a forum for viewers. Of course the company pays for the site.
You should see what people have to say when they do not like a certain programme.Wow. Criticism towards RTW is nothing compared to that.
On the other hand, this company i work for never witnessed a coordinated campaign against any of it's programmes, like this one against RTW. Again,![]()
Last edited by Vlad Tzepes; 04-12-2005 at 16:00.
"Whose motorcycle is this?", "It's a chopper, baby.", "Whose chopper is this?", "Zed's.", "Who's Zed?", "Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead." - Butch and Fabienne ride off into the sunset in Pulp Fiction.
I saw this and had to reply. I respectfully disagree.Originally Posted by HarunTaiwan
The TW community is just that: a community. Conversation should be held about any and all matters as the community sees fits. There will always be discussions that some do not care for or see constructive. Can you imagine if TosaInu posted a giant announcement "no talking about the com or you may be banned!"
Instead, in the context of the TW patch and fan concerns, It is my opinion that criticisim be constructive. I don't mean polite, I don't mean cordial, I don't mean butt-kissing. I just mean that "RTW sucks and all you who play it are losers" or similar comments are not productive criticism. Similarly. comments about the com should be productive as well.
Oh and by the way: You're all a bunch of freakin whiners! RTW is the best game of all time so go eat s*** and die! YARRRAAGRGHHHHH!!!
(yes that was a joke)
-
Shogun does have valid points and not so valid ones. He has every right to defend all of them. However, as a forum "admin and CA staff", the arrogance in his style is unacceptible, which would still be tolerated were he a commoner.No single person who sells a good or service can speak in this tone. The natural response of the customer starts with refusing to buy, ascends to as serious sanctions as boycoting and can reach the extremes at agitated overreactions. "...on a board that we pay..." You pay for that board, Shogun san, because hundreds of thousands have already paid you. Cheap semantics like this won't lead the devs or the community anywhere.Originally Posted by Shogun
I'm sure that Shogun was having hard time controling his emotions at the time his post was made. That may sound like clearing his false style but I hope it won't repeat. This very individual writing this message has very recently taken one whole week off the ORG not to reply to a silly post at the Watchtower in a way that would do much more harm than good. People with key responsibilities like Shogun san should behave with much intenser attention than a bare forum regular in similar cases.
(Just to set everything straight, let me repeat my resident belief on game developpers' intentions of always making their games good. They are artists before all and their products are artistic creations. They never intentionally make bad or broken stuff.)
-
Ja mata Tosa Inu-sama, Hore Tore, Adrian II, Sigurd, Fragony
Mouzafphaerre is known elsewhere as Urwendil/Urwendur/Kibilturg...
.
Hey Mouzaf,Originally Posted by Mouzafphaerre
I'm not sure if you know, but some people are going beyond boycott. Some are actually sabotaging the Amazon.com rating so to blackmail CA into releasing a new patch.
Bob Marley | Burning Spear | Robots In Disguise | Esperanza Spalding
Sue Denim (Robots In Disguise) | Sue Denim (2)
"Can you explain why blue looks blue?" - Francis Crick
Sabotage is an awfully strong word to use. I've read many of the reviews and most of them explicitly say the reason for their rating. Admittedly not many will read this but still. I would also say that it is fair to take into account the support the product is given when giving a rating. CA have told us that they can only give us one real patch. That's not particularly good support. Even believing that the AI reassessment is in fact intentional rather than a flaw there are plenty of other bugs in the game that require fixing. Yet they cannot fix them. Until they do is it treacherous or destructive to say that the product is currently defective and the only way to get a will be able to get a faultless game is to purchase the expansion? I suggest not. If any actions are to be described in these terms it is CA and Activision's.
GAH!
If you read the reviews on Amazon, they are actually quite clear rather than foaming at the mouth rants. There are a couple of goofy ones, but overall you get the picture as a prospective buyer: lots of potential, flawed product, no support coming to fix the major remaining problems, wait for it to hit the bargain bin. Hmmm, that's short and sweet, I should write an actual review...
CA spurned its community, and some of the community are using what little leverage they have to fight back. If CA considers getting the word out "sabotage" then they have bigger problems. CA had plenty of opportunity to respond in a more positive manner on the major remaining problems. They didn't. Blaming the consumer isn't going to get them anywhere.
And those 5 star ratings at this point are absolute BS anyway. I rated it a 1 after reading some on the inane 5 star comments. I was going to give a 3, but I had an allergic reaction to some of the 5's.
And in closing... GAH!
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
i also think the amazon reviews i've read have been pretty fair. they've been specific and reasoned and well written. i didn't come across too many "rtw sucks!!!!!" people have been writing about their problems with the game and have been explaining reasonably well, why they were giving it a rating that they were. it just so happens that its an organized campaign of how a lot feel about the game, instead of a haphazard one of separate individuals but its not like they are slandering it or adding untruths in their reviews. so i think its been a perfectly valid strategy so far.
indeed
And it is posts like this that really irk me. Even if this were true (and calling it sabotage and blackmail is not accurate) if the campaign worked we should all be happy. Those of us dense enough to still have an interest in the game would benefit from a proper patch. The irritation should be with the developer, not the consumer.Originally Posted by Quietus
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
Having read this post a comment comes to mind.Originally Posted by Red Harvest
The first is regarding the good point by Red Harvest;
any action taken by a group of consumers to spread negative or lower values on review sites or magazines is perfectly legal and CA should realise that political lobbying is conducted this way daily in the halls of power throughout the world.
Going head to head with people on this topic is dangerous only because when you "ignore or deal badly with a vocal minority” then you are running the risk of paying a price. That is what defines consumer power. If any one is unsure then the Americans on this board can attest to the effectiveness of “lobby groups” on their political system as example "A" of this concept.
If CA wish to conduct themselves in the manner they choose through their representatives on the official message board then they better hope they don’t annoy a member of the public that is motivated and has plenty of cash or has connections.
For example I could be the Marketing Director of FIFA.
FIFA just signed a huge deal with Sony…who make play stations…which platform does Sega make the most running on?? Who owns CA now?
All of a sudden it becomes very relevant and what I have found is that you never know what is around the corner in big business. Now of course I am nothing of what I mentioned above, but my final point is…if anyone feels motivated enough to organise themselves to conduct a campaign like the one mentioned over the last month…then good luck to them.
And to be perfectly honest. If CA doesn`t like it then stiff shiet!! I hope they get nailed in the Xpack sales.
Last edited by AussieGiant; 04-14-2005 at 18:11.
And something that is really bothering me is a major aspect of this "feature" and how it is initiated.
What seems to be missed by CA is, we are talking about SAVING and LOADING a file!!!
Now if saving and loading files was a "New" piece of functionality in applications then I might see their point.
Given Saving and Loading could easily be argued in a tribunal hearing as "Critical Application Functionality" in any piece of software made in the last 15 years, then the attitude is a little baffling.
Let me give you an example.
While saving or loading a word document, you lose all your spelling and grammar corrections from the last save.
Now while it is not a show stoppper, it is pretty god damn fundamental to the correct running of the application. You could just write the whole document out correctly the first time and then the problem doesn`t exist. However you are writing a thesis...then what do you do?? More importantly, saving and loading word documents has been a "Must Have" piece of funtionality since its creation. This is the same with any application that must provide continuity to be an affective program. Obivously games...AND especially strategy games fall within this category.
It is not a perfect analogy but it is pretty god damn good if I do say so myself. How CA can say that the Saving and Loading of a game should, or is designed to affect the application so drastically and so obviously is nearly indefensible!!!
Last edited by AussieGiant; 04-14-2005 at 18:15.
Quietus: I have to say I agree with Red Harvest. Words like "sabotage" and "blackmail" taken within their context in this thread (and in more general usage) are strongly negative. The balanced and reasonable spin (or sugar-coating) you now put on them is disingenuous to say the least. I think it is just as bad to dismiss the many reviews as "afterthoughts" when many are clearly well thought out and intentioned.
People have a right to express their opinions. Amazon gives them that right. It also gives other customers the right to appraise those opinions. Mark them down if you don't like them and write a review of you own. Stop bashing your fellow members of this board.
Yet you look at the numbers who voted in Amazon it's hardly a 1 star whitewash. Some customers have obviously taken into account their disgust at the support of the product and rated it down. That is okay in my book. If Ford produce a car that is almost a classic but has a great number of obvious faults and does not intend to put them right, I would expect people to mark the car down.Originally Posted by Gregoshi
Rome: Total War is in its final incarnation. What you buy at the shop is what you'll get. Yet there are three major issues with the game: the bizarre reload reassessment behaviour, the battle difficulty bug and the double combat traits bug. All of these are major issues and the last two are pretty noticeable. There are also numerous smaller issues with the game. Jerome Grasdkye admitted three of the smaller bugs on these very forums today. We can have some pointless debate over who carries the can for this very unfortunate state of affairs but that is the facts. Rome is a faulty product. It does not deserve 5 stars IMO. It deserves 3. Two marks are deducted for the errors and the lousy support. If we want to force software companies to support their product we can't just lie back and say it's okay to leave the game in this state! It was well be playable but it's not nearly as enjoyable as it should be.
I think it means that we've reached the end of the civil discussion when someone refers to a dictionary. I also note which member it was who first mentioned it. https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...8&postcount=83Originally Posted by Gregoshi
What more can one say?
As for people who believe that the game deserves 3 but vote 1 to bring down the average, well I do not agree with them. But I understand their view. They are tactically voting for the reasons most state in their reviews. It is not as if they are deceiving anyone here. The majority tell people exactly why they have given the game a 1 star rating. Usually in a lot more detail than those who have given it 5.
I scarcely think you even know the root of this campaign. Have you read the original thread "Your Homework for Today"? It was already locked and deleted. However, the second thread pertaining to the campaign is not deleted as of yet. Look for the thread "Amazon down to 4 stars for Rome!". Another locked thread, "Post here if you're unhappy with CA support" show this. I also don't believe you go to other forums to know the extent of the campaign.Originally Posted by Morat
Lastly: Ratings are derived from Reviews. Reviews aren't derived from Ratings. What the campaigners colluded to is to rate the game 1-star and then write the review (hence, afterthought). Do you see the difference?
Scroll up and read my last post up there.Originally Posted by Morat
Bob Marley | Burning Spear | Robots In Disguise | Esperanza Spalding
Sue Denim (Robots In Disguise) | Sue Denim (2)
"Can you explain why blue looks blue?" - Francis Crick
How is it sabotaging Amazon's rating by writing a negative review if you are an Amazon customer or registered there? If you are disatisfied with the product or customer service it is your right to go on there and write a negative review. Go in and post a 5 star rating there if you want, you won't see me whinning about it.Originally Posted by Quietus
When you decide that servicing your core niche is no longer important, you might as well put a gun to your corporate temple. - Red Harvest -
The "campaigners'" explicit, unfair goals/motives is to give it a pre-determined, automatic, de facto 1-star rating. The review part was an afterthought.Originally Posted by Turbo
Bob Marley | Burning Spear | Robots In Disguise | Esperanza Spalding
Sue Denim (Robots In Disguise) | Sue Denim (2)
"Can you explain why blue looks blue?" - Francis Crick
This is simply incorrect.The same people who give RTW 5-stars have pure intentions, thus their review for OTHER games will be in-line their review for RTW.
It is well known that many game companies will spike a review with 10/10s and 5/5s through their employees/fanboys to give a game an inflated and favourable review, whether or not the game actually deserves it.
Rarely, if ever, does a game deserve a 10/10 or 5-stars under any reviewing system.
So in this case the bias is to give the game high ratings which is NOT pure intentions, since it over-looks or hides problems with a game, thus deceiving the consumer into believing the game is a better product than it actually is.
Last edited by Pericles; 04-14-2005 at 23:01.
There is nothing "unfair" about their motives. You might not like their tactics, but they have just as much right to put a 1 star score as you do to put up a 5. They are using the only tools CA has left them with.Originally Posted by Quietus
Those reviews don't read at all like an "afterthought." You can try to slander them all you like, but their reviews are far more accurate than what I've seen of yours.
As for blackmail, my dictionaries say, "extortion by threats" rather than "coerce" Since there is no money going to the campaigners, extortion is out of the question. There is a clear implication of money, since the origin of the word is in "black rent." Ahh, I see how you are manipulating this now, you are using the verb definition, rather than the noun. You should work for CA...
And with sabotage, it is the same thing. Your skewed view doesn't match the connotation at all. This is an effort to actually improve the game, not damage it. That is clearly NOT SABOTAGE. You can call it that all you want, it won't make it so.
I was neutral to the campaign when I first saw it. But reading your bumbling defense and others like player1 have turned me strongly in the other direction.
Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.
The reviews are anything but an afterthought. You obviously haven't read the reviews.Originally Posted by Quietus
When you decide that servicing your core niche is no longer important, you might as well put a gun to your corporate temple. - Red Harvest -
"Guerilla tactics" might be a strong term, but I find it pretty close ot the mark considering the intended targets of that statement were going all out at CA by deliberately lowering scores at sites and writing horrible reviews, and telling people to do the same on CA's board. They were intently trying to hurt CA, not by not buying their products but by scaring other people away. I see no reason why CA should allow that on their board, do you?
He most certainly doesn't mean people who have a gripe with the start-mode of the save/load issue. He might not like that people are so vocal about that part, but that is not guerilla tactics and I know him better than to go that far out of bounds.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
I don't agree with your description, I don't think people intentionally wrote "bad" reviews, they just stated the fact that there is a loadgame bug that can severely handicap the AI (which is already not that flash). Arguably you are correct that they deliberately marked the game down lower than they normally would to "sabotage" Amazon's rating, but I think it's also true that the average rating for the game on Amazon is much too high.Originally Posted by Kraxis
My own opinion is that people have a perfect right to express their views on sites like Amazon or to game mags or any other publication - and just because this is an organized campaign rather than a random occurrence does not make it less legitimate. Consumers have a right to organize.
On the other side of the coin though, I think it a bit unrealistic to expect CA to tolerate calls for such a campaign on its own website. But by banning discussion of the issue consumers are reminded that the com is, after all, not a truly independent site.
In a sense, the patch campaigners have had their victory at the com anyhow. The Shogun's own sticky on the issue effectively announces to every newcomer that there is some kind of issue with the game that hasn't been resolved which has left customers dissatisfied.
Last edited by screwtype; 04-14-2005 at 09:53.
Bookmarks