Not really a tale so much as an explanation for why there are two reviews today for games we already reviewed. I goofed up. I put a little ad in gamejournalismjobs.com and got crushed by quality writers, each with three submissions to read.
Overwhelmed, I accidently let two people write reviews for games that were already being reviewed. Partially because I didn’t know who is going to pan out and who is going to ghost me, and partially because I unsuccessfully kept trying different tracking programs to keep track of this sort of thing.
Then Amber said – “Why don’t you just use a spreadsheet?” and I said “right, no good reason” and that problem got sorted and shouldn’t happen again – thank you Amber.
So, absolutely a mistake, but they’re good reviews and more data is better. I also found it interesting from an editor point of view to contrast them. I hadn’t played either game and want the site to be “accurate” so it’s comforting that the scores are so similar as are the overall opinions.
I was going to push back on Arshad’s Tokaido review (before I read Nic’s Tokaido review) asking him if it was more like a 79 instead of an 80. I rarely push back on scores but 80 is a line that shouldn’t be crossed lightly so I read our own scoring guidelines again and said nothing because his score matched his review. It sounds like a great game, the only fault being the low server pops and therefore inability to play online. But if that was sorted out in some 90%-off Steam sale then this sounds good enough to appeal to non-genre fans (in this case board games).
Arshad approached Tokaido as a pure relaxation game while Nic thought the relaxation was a mask for ruthlessness. Chris’ Seven review and Reikhardt’s review are remarkably similar in observations and impressions of the game as well as nearly the exact same frustration with the difficulty caused by the guards’ random patrolling and excellent spotting. It sounds like one of those cases where a feature I always wanted – proper guards in stealth games instead of visually impaired ones with obvious short visibility cones – doesn’t make for a better game. Or maybe it’s just a product of the old/new philosophy that games should be really hard.
Anyway, enjoy the alternate views. And my apologies to subscribers for the rare day when the site sends more than one email.