Tdarcos wrote:

Flack wrote:So if people find this thread via Google, I'm not sure they will believe that the review is unbiased when they find out the author of the game paid one of his forum members for the review.

Jonsey has seen this before: ICE 'CREAM' JONSEY IMPLICATED IN POSTS-FOR-MONEY SCANDAL!. Of course, it was referring to me, but...

That's one of my favorite threads. God, those were the days. When we lived. When we were truly free. Every post is a gem.

Flack wrote:So if people find this thread via Google, I'm not sure they will believe that the review is unbiased when they find out the author of the game paid one of his forum members for the review.

Jonsey has seen this before: ICE 'CREAM' JONSEY IMPLICATED IN POSTS-FOR-MONEY SCANDAL!. Of course, it was referring to me, but...

Well, we've been waiting for cookies for two years now, so I hope you're not paying him by the minute. ;)

How could this go bad? Well, if you Google "retroromper" (one word, in quotes) on the first page of Google hits is a link to Jolt Country. So if people find this thread via Google, I'm not sure they will believe that the review is unbiased when they find out the author of the game paid one of his forum members for the review.

As far as publicity goes, I think the reviews are a good idea. Retro has good insight and often comes up with perspectives a lot of people don't think of. I enjoy his writing and reviews.

In an effort to rev up the hype machine again, I've offered RetroRomper a payment to "review" Cryptozookeeper or Fallacy of Dawn or both. Essentially, this is in the advertising budget, except that I don't care if he rips both games to shreds.

I feel that new reviews is something everyone can point to. Plus I like Retro's thoughts on things.

I am here to answer your questions on how this could all go wrong. (Not because of anything Retro does, but just in general.)