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.

 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.

Obviously, they don't need to be belittling anyone but just like negative criticism, positive criticism is most worthwhile if it's constructive and honest.

When speaking of those goblins, by all means say that they have a old school look and that you find that charming if that's true. But do not shy away from the fact that the sculpting is soft and details are lackin if that's also true. It's much better to then acknowledge that and perhaps make suggestions for why someone might still find them worthwhile. Like the fact that they might fit in well if you already have a some old school pewter goblins that you want to fill out or that they're really charming sculpts despite somewhat lacking in technical execution.

It's not much of an issue when it comes to models since it's indeed instantaneous to just take a look at it yourself. If I was checking out reviews before buying a new game however, looking at a review would be a lot quicker (and potentially cheaper) way to get a basic feel for the game before buying in. As it is though, there's no point in watching any such review from BoW, since they can't be trusted to give an honest assessment, and not getting the rules right either for that matter.

Wasn't there also a point where Warren allegedly bought Facebook likes a couple of years ago?

I would say you are half right. They regularly get rules wrong and if the purpose of the video is to try and teach you how to play the game, then obviously that's not a good thing. If it's a 'demo' game (which is what they generally do instead of an actual 'review' of a game) then I don't think it matters so much that they get a rule wrong. Those videos are there to promote the game and let you see how it plays. From that, you can make your own decisions about whether or not it is the sort of game you would be interested in. So I wouldn't call that being dishonest (though to be fair, you didn't use that actual word either) unless you would consider the "If you can't say anything nice.." mentality to be in some way dishonest.

In my case, if I AM generally encouraged to check the game out after watching a BoW video about it, I will follow up by looking elsewhere for a more traditional (and critical) review before making a purchase. If I didn't watch the video, I would never have bothered reading the review.

 Tartarus the Abyss wrote:
Wasn't there also a point where Warren allegedly bought Facebook likes a couple of years ago?

Indeed that was alleged. But whether or not that matters depends on how much you are invested in that issue being true or false. For me, I don't trust the person who made the claim and while it doesn't seem to fit with Warren's style, I don't have evidence to prove that he didn't do it, so I don't trust either source. So the only thing we can say is absolutely true is that the claim was made.

Take a look at the robotech miniature reviews, then buy the kits for full price, assemble them, and tell me if you agree with the reviews.

Joyboozer wrote:
Take a look at the robotech miniature reviews, then buy the kits for full price, assemble them, and tell me if you agree with the reviews.

From about a year ago? Yeah I remember those. A couple of unboxings (not reviews) where they were sitting down alongside one of the writers from Palladium. I recall Justin made the statement to the effect of "the kits appear to be beginner friendly" (without having made them himself) and that upset some people since the experience of just about anyone who tried to put together those kits is contrary to that. I believe they clarified their statement later the same month. I don't believe they ever did make any and show them on camera **, or do a demo game of it (I wonder if that's why they always wrap up an unboxing now by showing the completed minis and talk about how they were to build ) There was ALSO a lot of fuss about the fact that it had been covered at all on account of the KS handling - much in the same way people complain about Prodos stuff I suppose - but again, that goes back to the way Beasts of War are. They aren't the guys who are there to ask the hard questions.. to put the companies on the spot and demand answers for you and get 'justice' for you by way of refusing to cover said companies game(s) until everything has been put right. Maybe that's what people want BoW to be? But those people would be barking up the wrong tree.

** Correction, they did build one and show it on camera, stating it took about 15 minutes to make.. and that for someone who was familiar with making minis, but unfamiliar with the setting or how things should look, that it was a reasonable amount of time. Of course, that was one of the Destroids. I'm not sure how happy I'd be spending 3 x 15 minutes to get all three modes built up for just one Veritech (not sure that's the right term).

Beginner friendly? In a hobby with snap fit starter kits?
BoW can hide behind " we just showcase the hobby" but not then pretend what they say and choose to showcase carries no weight.

I don't mind the BOW guys, their videos are good quality production wise, I sometimes have them on in the background while I'm painting and stuff. But i do get sick of the same exact ads in every video. I know they have to get those ads in, but they could mix it up or make a couple of different ones.

 Siygess wrote:
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.

And that doesn't raise red flags for you, both in relation to BoW and the stuff they cover?

When a videogame publisher embargoes all reviews of their product until after release day except for the handful of carefully stage-managed PR pieces on their pet websites/magazines(or just only allows the PR pieces full-stop), that does not give me confidence in the product and it certainly doesn't make me want to give the PR shills any of my money.

At this point, BoW are basically the White Dwarf Magazine of the non-GW wargaming market, uncritical BS merchants who's insistence on "being positive" is a thin cloak over the reality that most of their content isn't just riddled with advertising, it just is advertising, bought & paid for.

Um.. no? Why would it? Beasts of War is what it is and nowhere are they marketing themselves as the gaming equivalent of Newsnight. Besides, your analogy is missing one vital point. Those embargoes are usually put in place to maximise profit from preorders and day one sales before the Metacritic scores bottom out. Most of the content that BoW put out is after the fact, where said product is already out and has been reviewed elsewhere. They aren't shouting "Don't listen to those guys, they are lying, this is the best game ever!" from the rooftops.

The only 'exclusive' thing they get from a company are photos of minis (Infinity, mostly) but that's entirely visual and reposted elsewhere within the hour. Edit: And prize support, I guess.

..buy what they CAN do is collaborate with these companies to produce content that reaches a wide audience. Could these companies do that with another party? Sure, but even if the audience is there (like Dakka) and that third party has the media capability to contribute to the process and the capacity to host the content, they are never going to waste their time doing this in a potentially hostile environment.

I enjoy their enthusiasm, and the battle reports with creators of the games and miniature reveals are pretty good. In one sense they are a good 'one stop shop' for a lot of info about new releases (certainly from a sci-fi/fantasy perspective) and inbetween there and Dakka I think you can get a look at most of the incoming releases.

As for them not being critical, I don't think that's really in the nature of the beast or the show. There are plenty of forums, blogs and other places where you can get reviews on new releases. BoW isn't one of them, but for that reason you do get to see some releases from quite big companies early.

One thing I also like about them is that they didn't dip their head and stop covering GW stuff as some blogs and sites have done. There were some legal shenanigans between them and Wayland/GW at one point, and I heard they got stopped from entry into Games Day one time with their cameras. Did they tell them to go stick it as many of us would have done? No, they kept on right with their coverage of the hobby as an inclusive whole. Think that took some character and I think better of them for it.

if I go to BoW and click on the hobby tab, every entry on the first page is an advertisement, not a single how to. That's the biggest problem with BoW, and I've been there since the beginning.

I tend to use them more to get a bit of an overview on a game and then move on to a few forums and video reviews for information is a bit more in depth.

I do like the demo games as I think these are really shot quite well, and while there does seem to be errors with some rules etc, I find this in a lot of demo games videos. The one difference is that BoW don't rectify this after the fact which many game demos actually do.

They're a great lite gaming site to get a glimpse of something new you can't see in person at a local store or at a friends house,

but they're not something to go to for critical in depth discussion (along with anything with a significant dependant on advertising), but then how could they be? how long does it take you to fully learn a new game? How often have you realised your whole group has been playing something (basic) wrong for years

overenthusiastic, probably (Warren certainly gets carried away, but why not it's meant to be fun, if he didn't enjoy it I doubt he'd have set up BoW in the first place,

and if you're willing to spring for backstage there's a significant amount of modelling/terrain/painting stuff all in one place, sure you can get most of it free elsewhere but it takes a lot more fiddling around and searching

and most importantly there is new stuff up there regularly, at a rate few other sites provide, and just like wargames regular releases keep people coming back

Would like it a hell of a lot more if Warren was nothing to do with it, irritating isn't the word

fleegle23 wrote:

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?

Its a good show for entertainment, with a LITTLE information. if you find them entertaining, I'd say subscribe, bit their best days were when they were independent.