Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Just wondering what people's thoughts are on Beasts of War? Do you subscribe to the backstage area? Do you like the dedicated weeks they run.?

I've definitely been introduced to games through them, and some of the week long events they have done on one game have been pretty good. I subscribe to backstage, although I rarely access the material, but hopefully this 'donation' helps to keep the whole thing going. I do find Warren really off putting and find myself cringing through most of his stuff.

Do many people access their site?

I watch during Infinity weeks, but in general I don't trust any operation that only ever has good stuff to say about whatever they're covering. I don't like a lot of negativity, mind you, but if you aren't ever critical of your subject, I assume you're in the bag for them and that I can't trust you.

I was a backstager for a while, but they've become more "correspondents for hire" than any meaningful sort of journalistic source of information.

That they cover some lesser known games and have a good reach to provide them with some much needed exposure is great, but I don't think I've done more than scroll past links on my Facebook feed in months.

They are just cheerleaders for anyone who pays them (and pretty much anyone that doesn't) and often get information wrong. Many of their "personalities" are irritating imho.

I do visit their website to see if there's any news I've missed, but usually get the info from Dakka days before it shows up on BoW. It's more out of habit than anything.

I created a drinking game for watchig the weekender. Whenever Warren makes me want to shut the video off, I take a drink instead. You can have some fun that way.

Lol you would have been smashed after the first hour with that criteria.

I like them when they interview dave from Dropzone, but that is it.

I liked it better when it had at least as many hobby articles as advertising. Now it's almost all advertising articles.

I remember watching a video where they gushed on for like 20 minutes about 15mm mdf electric towers like they were the greatest thing to have happened miniature warming ever. Have they ever been seriously critical about... anything?

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Have they ever been seriously critical about... anything?

Granted I haven't watched all of their videos, but I have never seen them be critical of anything they review and I don't think they even know how to be critical.

Unfortunately, their coverage can't really be trusted since, as people have alluded to, they seem incapable of any kind of critisism. (I'm not advocating being negative for the sake of it, but your praise mean nothing if you just give it out routinely).


Judging by their Kings of War features, they also don't seem to learn the rules of the games they demonstrate. Every KoW clip I've seen from them has had glaring rules mistakes in them.

 Zywus wrote:
Judging by their Kings of War features, they also don't seem to learn the rules of the games they demonstrate. Every KoW clip I've seen from them has had glaring rules mistakes in them.

Oh it's not just KoW. And the errors are rampant in their news articles too. I think my favorite of all time was when the Dreadball Xtreme KS was running and they were covering the pitch accessories. They particularly liked the "spotlights" and thought they would be great "weapons to use on the pitch". It had to be pointed out to them that they were the strike posts and that is how you score in the game, which basic research would have told anyone who bothered to look at the product...

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Zywus wrote:
Judging by their Kings of War features, they also don't seem to learn the rules of the games they demonstrate. Every KoW clip I've seen from them has had glaring rules mistakes in them.

Oh it's not just KoW. And the errors are rampant in their news articles too. I think my favorite of all time was when the Dreadball Xtreme KS was running and they were covering the pitch accessories. They particularly liked the "spotlights" and thought they would be great "weapons to use on the pitch". It had to be pointed out to them that they were the strike posts and that is how you score in the game, which basic research would have told anyone who bothered to look at the product...

Yea, I suspected that their lack of research is similar over the whole field of games, but KoW is the only coverage I've seen from them where I knew the rules myself and so were able to spot the errors.

I used to really like the little painting videos that they had I found them very informative. I still watch a handful on YouTube from time to time

I think it's too bad that they, of all people, got to be the most popular and content-rich video website about miniature gaming. I can't stand the presenters, they just make me turn off within minutes. They don't seem to have anything worthwhile to say, they interrupt their guests with inane questions, they are overly excited about everything, and they just irritate the hell out of me.

Anyone that sings the praises of Prodos games... Yeah, they get a big thumbs down from me

You know, it's really not so hard to read between the lines. It's their style to look for the positives and be enthusiastic about them, while lettting you draw your own conclusions about things which are potentially negative. I've never heard them say "Oh these are cracking miniatures" when talking about some mangled lumps of metal that could possibly be goblins circa 1985, but they might say "Oh these are very old school!" and assuming you have eyes, you can decide for yourself that this is a bad thing. You don't need them belittling the creator on your behalf.

So the fact that so many companies want to work with BoW and create content with them is hardly a surprise; You catch more flies with honey and all that.

 Siygess wrote:
You know, it's really not so hard to read between the lines. It's their style to look for the positives and be enthusiastic about them, while lettting you draw your own conclusions about things which are potentially negative. I've never heard them say "Oh these are cracking miniatures" when talking about some mangled lumps of metal that could possibly be goblins circa 1985, but they might say "Oh these are very old school!" and assuming you have eyes, you can decide for yourself that this is a bad thing. You don't need them belittling the creator on your behalf.

If I want to look at a model and decide for myself it is good, I just go to some place and look at pictures. If that's all BoW offer, then they're even more useless than most of us are giving them credit for.

They are really the don't say anything if you don't have something nice to say type. Someone once asked them on their forums why they don't cover Battletech on their site and videos, and they just didn't respond.

 Digclaw wrote:
Someone once asked them on their forums why they don't cover Battletech on their site and videos, and they just didn't respond.

Well Battletech really isn't coming out with a whole lot in the way of new and exciting content, and what little there is Catalyst doesn't seem to be keen to promote. Hopefully that changes soon with the new artwork we're seeing from them but I wouldn't hold my breath.

They make good demo games, often with the creators of the games, and their unboxing videos are pretty good (especially the historical ones like Bolt Action and Flames of war if they have the two main historical guys) as they actually have excellent close ups. So even if they're clearly shilling, I can see for myself if the model is good.

That said, few people on this earth annoy me like Warren does, especially any historical systems he touches. I rember them trying to teach him flames of war and all he bought were stugs (protip, about the only worse army he could've made for an example of the game would be all King Tigers, since the whole point is combined arms) and then decided they would be some sort of nazi super science theme. In a game purely about historical battles. Every demo game, ridiculous scenarios, instead of, gee I dunno, scenarios the game comes with.

If they were just showing off a home league or something, sure, awesome. But these are demo games meant to show off the game! Why the heck are you coming up with ludicrous scenarios and wildly inappropriate armies? It doesn't show off the game well at all and wastes the awesome opportunities they get where the guys who MADE THESE GAMES are there to teach them! It's infuriating.

TL;DR if the video has Warren turn it off immediately. If it has anyone else it will be good, if a bit brown nosey.

 Siygess wrote:
You know, it's really not so hard to read between the lines. It's their style to look for the positives and be enthusiastic about them, while lettting you draw your own conclusions about things which are potentially negative. I've never heard them say "Oh these are cracking miniatures" when talking about some mangled lumps of metal that could possibly be goblins circa 1985, but they might say "Oh these are very old school!" and assuming you have eyes, you can decide for yourself that this is a bad thing. You don't need them belittling the creator on your behalf.

So the fact that so many companies want to work with BoW and create content with them is hardly a surprise; You catch more flies with honey and all that.

What you're essentially describing there is a PR department, not a critical reviewer.

If I'm looking for a review that I'm going to lend any credence to, I'm going to look for an apparent lack of bias (nothing should ever be an unqualified success or an unmitigated disaster) and an element of authority (do these people have greater experience, a broader knowledge or a better perspective than me?)

BoW didn't really offer me that at any point, but certainly haven't really been relevant since very shortly after I returned to gaming after a long break and began to have enough knowledge to better critique a lot of stuff myself than their videos.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I like them when they interview dave from Dropzone

Yeah, they seem to have a good rapport!

I like BoW - they do good work! Could do with a few less ads, but hey - that's why you come to Dakka

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Digclaw wrote:
Someone once asked them on their forums why they don't cover Battletech on their site and videos, and they just didn't respond.

Well Battletech really isn't coming out with a whole lot in the way of new and exciting content, and what little there is Catalyst doesn't seem to be keen to promote. Hopefully that changes soon with the new artwork we're seeing from them but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I meant mostly is that Battletech is more rules centric rather than Miniatures centric. Most of them aren't that good looking, and Beasts of war are not really rules oriented, they just like miniatures mostly.

While I disagree with some of the stuff they do, I do think they serve an important part in the gaming community. I believe they are good at bringing in new people. Part of the reason for that is maybe because they are kind of.... "incompetent" at most of the rules. When someone new sees them they can see themselves in a similar spot. I feel like I look at them a lot less than I use to but I still enjoy some of the week highlight stuff when they talk about new models for Infinity or Wild West Exodus ect.

To be fair I just may be a bit bias because it was their videos that got me into gaming in the first place. I would never use them for tactics, but they really do seem like a good first place for people newer to the community. All in all they have their place so I don't feel like saying anything negative about them.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Siygess wrote:
You know, it's really not so hard to read between the lines. It's their style to look for the positives and be enthusiastic about them, while lettting you draw your own conclusions about things which are potentially negative. I've never heard them say "Oh these are cracking miniatures" when talking about some mangled lumps of metal that could possibly be goblins circa 1985, but they might say "Oh these are very old school!" and assuming you have eyes, you can decide for yourself that this is a bad thing. You don't need them belittling the creator on your behalf.

So the fact that so many companies want to work with BoW and create content with them is hardly a surprise; You catch more flies with honey and all that.

What you're essentially describing there is a PR department, not a critical reviewer.

If I'm looking for a review that I'm going to lend any credence to, I'm going to look for an apparent lack of bias (nothing should ever be an unqualified success or an unmitigated disaster) and an element of authority (do these people have greater experience, a broader knowledge or a better perspective than me?)

BoW didn't really offer me that at any point, but certainly haven't really been relevant since very shortly after I returned to gaming after a long break and began to have enough knowledge to better critique a lot of stuff myself than their videos.

True. But they don't review things, not in that sense. They never give something a score, they never say 'is this *really* worth buying?'.. instead they create content that tries to promote the positive aspects of each game that passes through their hands.. so yeah, I suppose a freelance PR department is one way to look at it. If you are looking for a critical review then sure, BoW isn't the place for that. But nine times out of ten, a site that offers critical reviews is not going to get the chance to work with these companies to put out content and that's not an accident. So if BoLS (is that a good example? I'm not sure) decide to do an article series on something, for better or for worse they will be doing it on their own.

If they run on advertising to fund themselves, they are not likely to bite the hands that feeds them... They run a business and one largely dependant on said manufacturers paying for advertising I suspect. I can understand why they put a positive focus on everything. Its a difficult thing to be totally independent and then have to rely financially on those people you are reviewing. So they do at least offer clear and visible visuals of products that do allow you to at least have some idea of new lines and products. I also quite like their news feeds and see things I would never have encountered before, though 90% is of no interest to my personal tastes.



...and those mangled lumps of metal Goblins, circa 1985, if shown this weekend, were mine!

Big P wrote:
If they run on advertising to fund themselves, they are not likely to bite the hands that feed them...

On the other hand their ability to attract advertising depends on having an audience, and having zero credibility as a source of reviews doesn't help attract and keep an audience if product reviews are supposed to be a major part of your content.

Yep... Its a double edged sword to a degree.

But if you have a large viewer base, then you can to a degree, become the stand in marketing venue for companies without the time, inclination or resources to do it themselves.

If a company has that need, then credibility is less of an issue if you want the product shown off in main.

 Peregrine wrote:

Big P wrote:
If they run on advertising to fund themselves, they are not likely to bite the hands that feed them...

On the other hand their ability to attract advertising depends on having an audience, and having zero credibility as a source of reviews doesn't help attract and keep an audience if product reviews are supposed to be a major part of your content.

True, but I think you can attract a very large audience by having exclusive content, showing off shiny things and going out of your way NOT to be an ass hat. I like BoW because I like the content and I like the enthusiasm for the hobby. It balances out perfectly with this place

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Digclaw wrote:
Someone once asked them on their forums why they don't cover Battletech on their site and videos, and they just didn't respond.

Well Battletech really isn't coming out with a whole lot in the way of new and exciting content, and what little there is Catalyst doesn't seem to be keen to promote. Hopefully that changes soon with the new artwork we're seeing from them but I wouldn't hold my breath.

I just got in to BT so, out of curiosity, where IS a place to go for good BT coverage? I get the feeling that it's all about the player campaigns on YouTube.

Big P wrote:
...and those mangled lumps of metal Goblins, circa 1985, if shown this weekend, were mine!

Haha, seriously? Lucky guess on my part then. I haven't watched the show yet, but maybe they were featured in a previous episode