I’m late to the conversation, but this is how I’m processing it. In a world that is celebrating the fact that there are now two viable forms of publishing – traditional and self-published – you are suggesting returning to a time of gatekeepers. I am pro-traditional publishing when it comes to books and games, BUT I would never walk into a self-publishing forum and say to the people, “hey, let’s set up some gatekeepers!”
But you will probably argue that is NOT what you want. That you don’t want gatekeepers, you just want the level of marketing that can exist when you have gatekeepers. There is a reason people will try the next book published by Random House, and the reason IS quality control. They have a large team of people all focusing on their single expertise in order to create a great product. Sometimes, despite hard work, they still fail. But more often than not, taste aside, they end up with a great product. And the same was true for Infocom. I think going through the Internet Archive files right now should be statement enough of how much work, how many people, went into each game.
Quality control, of course, means that they reject the vast majority of the work presented to them. If they can’t see how they will market it, or they don’t think the work itself lives up to the brand’s standards, they reject it.
But you will probably argue that is NOT what you want, either. What it sounds like you want is a system where people are obligated to turn around and help others once they’ve gotten accolades for their work. And while that is lovely, and when it works, it is a beautiful thing, it is usually personal in nature. X and Y build a relationship, and due to that support, X turns around and helps Y when possible. Or X personally feels moved to help all people who come to him/her for help because they love supporting others. But the missing piece here is that it only works when it is a personal impulse, not an obligatory system. Because when it is an obligatory system – and when I know it is an obligatory system – X’s word becomes meaningless.
Think of it this way: X tells me that she loves Bubbles soap detergent because it got her dishes amazingly clean. Y tells me that she loves Bubbles soap detergent because Bubbles soap detergent is part of her soap collective and she has to promote Bubbles soap detergent. Which word holds more weight? For me, it would be X because X is simply speaking her truth. Whether I am in the market for a new soap is beside the point. I am always going to be more willing to hear what X recommends next because it is her opinion vs. an obligation.
So yes, when writers I respect mention a new game on their blog or in these forums, I give it a chance because I know they are doing so because they personally feel passionately about it. If they were telling me out of obligation, would their words still hold weight? Unlikely.
Do I know that those writers were possibly approached by the other game maker who asked them for a review? Yes – and that diminishes nothing because I still know that X said yes because X wanted to say yes. X didn’t have to say yes.
Which brings us back to Infocom and the quality control model. I would love to see another IF company exist alongside all the other IF companies that already exist. The more the merrier because I then have more games to play. But I’m so grateful that (1) people are self-publishing games, (2) that people are reviewing self-published games, and (3) that sites like the IFDB exist so I can find and download said games. The system is working well enough that through recommendations and reviews, I’ve found plenty to play. More, in fact, than I have time to play.
And the stuff that I’ve played is wonderful. So thank you to all of the writers out there in this forum.
