Neuro "Schloesser" Hex

I think he might be wearing pleated pants.

You need to be spanked Uba! or at least be denied Bourbon for one week, take your pick!

What is this 2006 again?

Michael Barnes wrote:

Sorry Tom, it's not a "downright lie", it's making fun of you because it's known you get tons of free games and aren't one to pass on a bad review of say, a Days of Wonder game.

1) You get paid to write your reviews for gameshark.
2) You are honestly going to claim you haven't gotten free review copies of games?
3) We know for a fact Gameshark gets review copies of video games (Bill's said as much.)

So what exactly is your problem?

If you 2 are going to start up this bullshit again then you better have a compelling argument this time, because it just sounds like the same old sour grapes as before.

"Sour grapes?" Frank, I could post "Hey guys, the sky is blue" and you'd bitch about what I said. Friend, you _wrote the book_ on sour grapes!

Michael Barnes wrote:

"Sour grapes?" Frank, I could post "Hey guys, the sky is blue" and you'd bitch about what I said. Friend, you _wrote the book_ on sour grapes!

You didn't answer my question.

Skeletor,


You have never really understood the Vasel phenom. Let me explain it to you. There is quite a big difference between Vasel and Barnes but I admit it may be subtle to you.


If you listen to my podcast with Vasel you will hear him admit to a rather interesting point. He says for the longest time he was jumping up and down to get the attention of Hasbro. He wanted Hasbro to join the league of companies sending him free games to review.

Vasel admits that the Hasbro catalog has very little to offer the gamer (gamers like us) so why would he go to the trouble of attracting the attention of Hasbro if his sole concern was promoting gaming?

His sole concern is promoting Tom and getting free games. That is why he even tapped Hasbro in his crazy quest to sap all gaming companies from their wares. Tom is driven. You can see it in his videos and you can see it by the amount of reviews he puts out. A mad sickness that I believe he can't stop. It is very similar to a collector of any sort that must have every item in the collection. He has a racket going.

Barnes on the other hand did not seek out Gameshark. Gameshark contacted him and like any of us would he accepted. But his aim is truly gaming while Tom's aim is Tom.

1) You get paid to write your reviews for gameshark.

Yep, so what? I was offered a paid writing gig. I am a professional writer. Why in the fucking world would I turn down an offer to get paid to write about board games?

2) You are honestly going to claim you haven't gotten free review copies of games?

Of course not, if I did that I would be lying. Here is a list of some of the games I have received review copies of:

GALACTIC EMPEROR
MUTANT CHRONICLES CMG
SENJI
AGE OF GODS

If you look back my most negative reviews for the year were those four games. I paid for RACE FOR THE GALAXY and TOMB. And AGRICOLA, DOMINION, WORLD CUP GAME ($150 total on that one), TOUCH OF EVIL...all bought out of pocket. When a publisher offers me a review copy, of course I'll accept it...but I have a reputation as a straight reviewer, so they know I'm going to be honest about the game so they better know what to expect. I've also been sent free copies of stuff like GIFT TRAP, that I gave away without reviewing it because I didn't think I was the right person to do it and it wouldn't be fair to write a review for something that doesn't even have a chance as far as I'm concerned. I guarantee you though that if I solicited review copies from Rio Grande Games or Days of Wonder they wouldn't send them to me based on my reputation.

And for the sake of full disclosure, FFG sent me a box today with TALISMAN, COSMIC ENCOUNTER, and ANDROID in it as they did to everyone on their press list, including presumably Tom Vasel. And I'm not ashamed. I just got laid off from my regular job so I wouldn't have been able to buy those games if I wanted to. TALISMAN and CE, you already known my opinion on but I think an article about the new editions is in order. And it's my responsibility to every reader of F:AT and Gameshark.com, Bill Abner, Kevin Wilson, Christian Petersen, and everybody at FFG to report on it in an honest, intelligent manner regardless of whether I paid for the game or not. If I trash it (which doesn't seem likely because the game looks pretty awesome), then if Jeremy and co. want to strike me off the press list then that's fine, I'd rather pay for every FFG game ever published from now on than have a Tom Vasel, Pollyanna reviewer reputation. I'm a professional, and part of that is maintaining integrity and impartiality.

You know what's funny about the free game thing? It's actually more of a benefit for me to buy the games than it is to get them free. I can write off about $150 a month on taxes for board game purchases.

3) We know for a fact Gameshark gets review copies of video games (Bill's said as much.)

Yep, and so does every other video game site, music review site, movie review site, consumer product review site, and so on. Is it shameful to admit that? No. Is it shameful when a site deliberately publishes dishonest, positive reviews to appease companies and remain in their good graces? absolutely. The problem is that a lot of folks in board gaming either don't have strong opinions or they are too intimately involved with personalities and entities in the hobby to give an honest, impartial opinion. In larger industries, that isn't such a problem except when places like IGN or Gamespot get called out for it.

So what exactly is your problem?

That Tom comes on here and mischaracterizes everybody that participates in our site, including you, specifically bringing up the old "They don't talk about games at F:AT" chestnut. He has not participated in a single discussion about board games here, and I'm sure you'll agree that we have many as well as many extremely good ones yet he sees fit to show up in a Steve Weeks thread about Greg Schloesser. I also have a problem with the fact I made a joke about the whole "payola" thing in the Trashies post, which is really quite absurd in the context of board games anyway, and he took it so dreadfully seriously as you seem to have. You two may be the only ones to do so at this point.

If you 2 are going to start up this bullshit again then you better have a compelling argument this time, because it just sounds like the same old sour grapes as before.

Frankly, I could care less about Tom except when he directly engages me or this website. He's not part of the gaming culture or community as I know it anymore, and to back that up I'm putting any talk about him or Greg Schloesser on my "banned" conversation topic list along some other board game site that I forgot the name of. You are right, there's no reason to bring up something that's been talked about ad nauseum so I'm not going to do it any more. Maybe Tom will agree to do the same. It was weird to see him post something that could have been written a year, two years ago like that, wasn't it?

OK, now does that answer your question?

Michael Barnes wrote:

Sorry Tom, it's not a "downright lie", it's making fun of you because it's known you get tons of free games and aren't one to pass on a bad review of say, a Days of Wonder game. But poor ol' Sodbusters...did you pay for that one or something? Who gave you enough F:ATbucks to buy an avatar anyway?

Ah, Sodbusters was not one I paid for, thankfully. Days of Wonder? You must have missed my review of their TTR: Dice Game.

Funny that out of all the board game discussion that goes on here DAILY, you choose to pop your head in on something that is about Greg Schloesser. You could have, at any time, participated in any of the many great discussions about games and gaming that we have had over the past year and some change but instead _you_, my friend, seem to be more interested in talking about worn out subjects like who Greg Schloesser "really" is and how we should be ashamed for mocking him or you or whatever since y'all are modest, church mice types. This thread was threatening to turn into a roast for Frank Branham before you showed up. I don't think Tom Vasel has even been mentioned here in the past six months until I made that crack in the Trashies post.

Oh, I know I could have participated before. I've been reading here since the beginning. Most of the time I simply read (although I think I asked some questions about Runebound.) I'm not mentioned here much (which is nice), although a few people seemed to think I ran the Secret Santa thing just to get a free game. But I'm glad to know you consider me a friend.

OK Tom, you can leave now, I'm about to start talking about games again.

Nah, think I'll stick around. Gotta keep your modest church mouse ratio high.

Michael Barnes wrote:

So what exactly is your problem?

That Tom comes on here and mischaracterizes everybody that participates in our site, including you, specifically bringing up the old "They don't talk about games at F:AT" chestnut. He has not participated in a single discussion about board games here, and I'm sure you'll agree that we have many as well as many extremely good ones yet he sees fit to show up in a Steve Weeks thread about Greg Schloesser. I also have a problem with the fact I made a joke about the whole "payola" thing in the Trashies post, which is really quite absurd in the context of board games anyway, and he took it so dreadfully seriously as you seem to have. You two may be the only ones to do so at this point.

Eesh, I didn't take it seriously! Doesn't make it any less of a lie, though. You have, in this thread in others - along with Weeks - made the point that I give games nice reviews simply to get free copies. This isn't true. You can keep saying it - that's fine. Don't get upset when I call the lie the lie that it is, though.

I certainly didn't say that F:AT doesn't talk about games, though! I know you guys do! I just thought that it was ironic that there is a complaint about the cult of personality at BGG, when I see just as much of it here - that's all.

You are right, there's no reason to bring up something that's been talked about ad nauseum so I'm not going to do it any more. Maybe Tom will agree to do the same. It was weird to see him post something that could have been written a year, two years ago like that, wasn't it?

Sure, I don't want to keep bringing it up and up again - that's why I didn't write it for a year or so. I won't keep arguing over this point. I'll state it one last time for the record.

I don't write reviews to get review copies.
I have written quite a few negative reviews - especially over the past year, and several companies have stopped sending me reviews because of it. Fine. Life goes on.
Games I don't like I get rid of - immediately. I've lost my collector's bug.

I'll try, Michael, to participate more in the game discussions here. I usually just read discussions, whether here or at BGG, but I'll try to be a little more proactive.

Who are you again?

Isolationism is never the answer!

I propose a Game Summit where we all come together and work out our differences for the good of the hobby!

Since I am neutral I will offer my services as moderator.

Tom you can recruit Greg, Rick Derk, and Aldie

Speaking of talking about games, anyone gotten their hands on the new version of Neuroshima Hex?

Who are these people you're talking about Steve? I can't remember...I don't think I've ever seen anyone with any of those names turn up at the game events I go to...

metalface13 wrote:

Speaking of talking about games, anyone gotten their hands on the new version of Neuroshima Hex?

Yep. Pretty cool though I haven't tried the Mad Bomber or the Mercs yet.

tomvasel wrote:

I certainly didn't say that F:AT doesn't talk about games, though! I know you guys do! I just thought that it was ironic that there is a complaint about the cult of personality at BGG, when I see just as much of it here - that's all.

There are definitely personalities on this site, but I don't know about the cult thing. No-one seems to take themselves too seriously on this site and even the "Big Names" are open to criticism and being roasted by the plebs like myself without suffering a backlash from fanboys trying to defend their "heroes".

I'll try, Michael, to participate more in the game discussions here. I usually just read discussions, whether here or at BGG, but I'll try to be a little more proactive.

Well, I'd like to hear from you more on this site Tom. The more voices the better. I like your written reviews and appreciate any efforts to promote gaming. Not so sure about the vids yet. And what you did to the Heroscape gear was bordering on criminal. Yeah, I know you were demonstrating the durability, but I just went cold dude.