Armory Primer Review

[WarGameGuru]

I've posted a review today of Armory Primers

http://wargameguru.weebly.com/review---armory-primer.html

Enjoy!

[redzed]

did you buy the product?

did you get the product given to you?

did you threaten the company to get the product?

[Welf VIII.]

@WarGameGuru:

Instead of posting boring reviews of products nearly everybody here already knows quite well, please post some of the miniatures you painted or games you played!

Are you really interested in developing the hobby or just in getting free stuff and as many hits as possible on your website?

[Commander Vyper]

I did ask you on your Maxmini 'blog' thread how you go about writing and preparing your 'reviews', you appear to have deleted the entire thread???

Very odd, so again do you chose a product to review then contact the company to get said product, or do you buy the product first and then review?

Simple question that any 'Guru' should be able to answer?

[Hammers]

Instead of posting boring reviews of products nearly everybody here already knows quite well,

You don't know that. In my experience we answer the same technique questions over and over again here in Workbench. In any case, I'd like to keep things civil here.

I don't like covert product placements, if such things happen here, which I have no evidence of. Yet.

Forum rules say:

2.5 Advertisements.

You may NOT post advertisements of any kind that are unrelated to the forum, including (but not limited to) cars, laundry detergent, online shops, etc. This specifically includes other forums. VIOLATION OF THIS RULE WILL LEAD TO IMMEDIATE BANNING OF THE USER.

The only exception to this rule is small-scale advertising for hobby companies, painting services etc – basically anything that is gaming-related. I’m fine with that. Private reviews of product and services are encouraged to help others, but keep it objective and slander/libel-free.

If you run your own gaming-related business, you may advertise new product on a moderate scale; nonetheless, if that is the case, we strongly encourage you to make a contribution (via the Paypal Donate button) to support the LAF and ensure it will keep running (servers and traffic aren’t free, after all). It would not be fair for companies to use the LAF as a cheap “billboard” while the common user supports it with donations.

If these rules are vague to you, please ask me or any other moderator for advice.

[Silent_Spectre]

Hi Wargameguru,

I've never seen your blog before but I'm always open to reading new things...

One thing (amongst other small niggles about your site layout) that stood out for me was the following comment:

I'm normally not one to actually cover a bad product intentionally either. If something is usually this bad, I overlook it and don't attempt to cover it altogether. I feel a bad review is a waste of time, and people would rather read about something they can make use of, or something they'd actually enjoy.

Are you saying that you only review items that you consider to be good? For me this undermines any and all credibility you have reviewing any items as I will always have the thought that you have prejudged said item.  Reviews of products should be impartial and it should not matter, after extensive testing, whether you as the reviewer like the product or not; your job is to inform us, the readers, of how good the product is and of any flaws it may have.

As it stands, I am unlikely to read any more of your reviews or recommend you to anyone else.

Just my thoughts


Stuart
 

[Calimero]

Make me wonder how many of the previous posters actually read the review? Just out of curiosity…

[WarGameGuru]

Hi Wargameguru,

I've never seen your blog before but I'm always open to reading new things...

One thing (amongst other small niggles about your site layout) that stood out for me was the following comment:

Are you saying that you only review items that you consider to be good? For me this undermines any and all credibility you have reviewing any items as I will always have the thought that you have prejudged said item.  Reviews of products should be impartial and it should not matter, after extensive testing, whether you as the reviewer like the product or not; your job is to inform us, the readers, of how good the product is and of any flaws it may have.

As it stands, I am unlikely to read any more of your reviews or recommend you to anyone else.

Just my thoughts


Stuart
 

Many publications work like this.  The policy to cover only products that an editor or publication feels is worth covering is nothing new either. I cover products I think might be of interest to my readers first and foremost. However, what I think or feel might be a good product, doesn't always end up being what I thought it was going to be at end of the day either. I don't hide the bad points either, I mention the good and bad both in EVERY review I post. Don't read more into what I said in that review than what's there Stuart.

The only thing I TRY and do is pre-select the products I cover, based on what I think and feel my readers will find useful. How else should I determine what to review? Should I go out of my way to contact X company, to cover a game that by reading the free rules alone, I can clearly see is a bad product, and not worth covering, or should I spend my pre and post-production time working on a review of a product that I think my readers will find useful, and that would possibly be fun to read about? I'm a one man show too, I prefer to offer useful content, and the fact is, covering products people will enjoy is more useful than wasting the time and effort to cover what's clearly a turd. I'm also not the first person to have came up with this type of review policy. It has been around for literally decades.

At the end of the day, people read magazines to read about things they want to hear about, and more actual magazines in this world today handle content the very same way as I do. I know, I've worked in this and many other industries for almost 2 decades now as a freelance writer. I also owned my own magazine in the mid 90s, which I later sold to Computer Games Magazine in '98, and have been freelance ever since. I think I know a thing or two about this and other industries when it comes to publishing and how publishers and magazines operate.

Believe it or not, those are the facts. This approach has worked very well for WarGameGuru too. I also end up with many random products that I was asked to cover by a company as well, so I do get my share of products to review that I have no idea what they're like before I get them as well. I just try and avoid what are clearly turds ahead of time if I can, and I've never accepted a product for review that I didn't cover at WarGameGuru either.

Think what you like, but I clearly operate no differently than many other magazines you probably read today, the only difference is, you might not even realize what the other publications actual review policies are. Others try and hide this fact, because of the way you responded.

My objectivity isn't in question either, because while I may think or feel it might POSSIBLY be a good product going into it, that doesn't mean by the time the review is over that it's a product I personally will like either. My review of All Things Zombie is a prime example that my objectivity is just fine. Another example is my review of Please Stand By as well. I make it a point to provide all of the pros and cons that I can find, and include that data within each review as well, even if it's a game I absolutely love, or hate, because at the end of the day a review is persons opinion. Only I try and offer enough facts about every product, so that the reader can come up with their own opinion by the time they reach the end of the review.

Again, I know I can't possibly please everyone, but I do attempt to please the most people possible, and my approach is no different than that of the majority of actual magazines online and in-print operating today. The difference is, the majority of readers of most magazines never inquire what the review policy is, and many publications simply don't make that policy very clear. I think you'd be quite surprised by the results if you emailed the editor of many popular magazines, and asked them exactly what their review policy is. I bet you'd find that most aren't much different than mine.

[WarGameGuru]

You don't know that. In my experience we answer the same technique questions over and over again here in Workbench. In any case, I'd like to keep things civil here.

I don't like covert product placements, if such things happen here, which I have no evidence of. Yet.

Forum rules say:

If these rules are vague to you, please ask me or any other moderator for advice.

Thank you. The problem is sir that there's a group of Frothers members who are also members here who simply can't stand me, and have made it their sole purpose in life to follow me where ever I may go, to harass and attempt to discredit and blacklist me. They've turned every thread they could into a fragfest of words on Frothers and TMP every time my name comes up.

They're trying to do the same thing here now, it's clear by the number of threads beginning to spiral out of control today. They have a thread on Frothers where they made it a point to come here to cause trouble. A guy named Allen is my #1 virtual stalker, who every chance he gets steps in to cause trouble. I'm not sure if he's AECurtis here as well, but he had this to say on Frothers earlier...

Looks like there is still work to be done:

http://leadadventureforum.com/index.php?topic=21617.0
__________

WarGameGuru
assistant
Posts: 29
Armory Primer Review
« on: Today at 01:16:42 PM »

I've posted a review today of Armory Primers
http://wargameguru.weebly.com/review---armory-primer.html
Enjoy!


redzed
Supporting Adventurer
scientist
Location: Dorset
Posts: 335

Re: Armory Primer Review
« Reply #1 on: Today at 05:46:08 PM »
did you buy the product?
did you get the product given to you?
did you threaten the company to get the product?


Welf
assistant
Posts: 26

Re: Armory Primer Review
« Reply #2 on: Today at 06:33:02 PM »
@WarGameGuru:
Instead of posting boring reviews of products nearly everybody here already knows quite well, please post some of the miniatures you painted or games you played!
Are you really interested in developing the hobby or just in getting free stuff and as many hits as possible on your website?


That's a copy of the post he started there earlier, and ever since that was posted, here they are acting like the cyber bullies that they are, poking and prodding, trying to tip toe around your rules to get in a jab where ever, and however they can. You would think at some point, that even grown men who play with toy soldiers would just grow the heck up already. That's asking too much of this bunch. I've never experienced a more tenacious and ignorant acting bunch in all the years I've been on the internet, the sad part is they're proud of that fact too.

[blackstone]

I don't like covert product placements, if such things happen here, which I have no evidence of.

Personally I find this comment truly staggering. If you wish I'd be happy to elaborate...

Why are people singling out one person and throwing mud which could equally be throw at many, many others?

[Silent_Spectre]

A wordy response...

Please don't be patronising and tell me what I should or
should not read into a given statement.  I am an individual too with a right to an opinion and the right to state it.

Clearly I have hit a nerve here or you would not feel the need to defend yourself so vehemently.  I think you have missed the point I was trying to make (or intentionally ignoring it): it is quite clear in that particular review (and I'll admit I have not read any more than that) that you have stated that you would not intentionally review what you consider a "bad product". Not an "unsuitable" product as you have gone on about, which I would concur with (no point in covering the latest Nikon camera with a fantastic macro lens for example, as this would, I suspect, be of little or no interest to most gamers).   

This has very much coloured my view of you and your reviews.  I dare say that what you say about the industry is true and that many editors will prejudge a given product or service, but I've yet to come across a magazine or online article (with the exception of yours) that has been hamfisted enough to outright state it.  The point I was trying to make was that the perception of impartiality is key when reading a review.  Sadly, with that one short paragraph, you have destroyed that for
me.

Other people may feel differently, I cannot speak for them - but as I stated in my previous post, I will not be reading any further reviews you may write.


Stuart 

[redzed]

Why are people singling out one person and throwing mud which could equally be throw at many, many others?

because Wargamesguru  actively threatens small companies with bad reviews unless they send him free product.

He also routinely, and deliberately causes aggro on forums so as to increase traffic to his own website.

[WarGameGuru]

because Wargamesguru  actively threatens small companies with bad reviews unless they send him free product.

He also routinely, and deliberately causes aggro on forums so as to increase traffic to his own website.

Redzed is a once again misrepresenting the truth, and has no proof to back of these same accusations he's been throwing around for months now. If I were anything like the person he, and his pals continually tries making me out to be, I'd be truly blacklisted and out of a job. I'm one of the few people to ever stand up to the scourge of Frothers, and live to tell about it. They can't stand the fact that they've accomplished nothing, and I'm still moving along biz as usual. I'm still here and WarGameGuru is doing better than it was two months ago, which is when he and his cohorts from Frothers began this crusade to discredit, and blacklist me. It goes to show that the true influence of Frothers is limited to that little warped world of Frothers, and their not as influential, or as important as they claim to be. They sure try tho, look at what that little gang of cyber bullies has been up to here today.

I also caused no argo here at all, you and your pals from Frothers follow me around like flies and poop, and cause ALL the agro every single time. What are you doing here today, it's certainly not an attempt to be the ambassador of good will? Further proof that you're bending the truth and are delusional as usual.

Have you made a single post here today that wasn't insulting me, and an attempt to discredit me? I think not. It doesn't take a rocket scientist for anyone to see what you're all about.

[WarGameGuru]

Personally I find this comment truly staggering. If you wish I'd be happy to elaborate...

Why are people singling out one person and throwing mud which could equally be throw at many, many others?

It's a Frothers thing. There's a band of cyber bullies on Frothers, that can't stand me, and they hate the fact that I run WGG and that they couldn't bring me down with their missrepresentation of the truth, and all of the nonsense they've attempted there and on other forums. So they followed me here now, because they get off on ganging up on people and harasing them. Then they go back to Frothers and chuckle about it among each other. Sounds like a pretty sad exitence, but to each their own I guess.

Its just in their nature, and I can't believe grown men who play with toy soldiers would go as far as these guys have in their attempts to cause me ill will. It's truly unbelievable. I've never encountered a more tenacious bunch, bent on harassing a single person, to the point that they'll risk being banned everywhere else, just to say what they have to in attempt to discredit me.

[TwoGunBob]

I think most of the people whom also post on frothers were here first but far be it from me to put a dent in your persecution complex.