Slashdot Mirror
Famitsu Boss Talks Future Of Game Magazines
Thanks to Video-Fenky for translating a Japanese editorial from Famitsu Magazine discussing the future of videogame magazines, as Enterbrain president Hirokazu Hamamura muses: "With the Internet as widespread as it is, many people don't think we need game magazines at all -- after all, you can get the latest information right on the Net." But he argues for the "...real charm of your basic [paper-based] magazine news feature: it takes plain old news and turns it into something you don't mind sitting down and reading for a long time." He also suggests that game reviewers have to contend with much more targeted genres, suggesting: "The marketing tactics behind narrowing down target audiences [for specific games] will become the first step in game creation, not the last... Once that happens, game reviews based on the likes and dislikes of the reviewer will become meaningless."
For those of you who don't know, Famitsu is one of the longest-running and most respected Japanese video game magazines. They have an uncanny ability to get information first, and get interviews with high-ranking people. Chances are, if you have ever seen a japanese video game magazine, this is it. If you have ever heard an American magazine cite a Japanese magazine, this is it.
The article's deconstruction of online game magazines is quite amusing. In essence, it says that online reviews are junk, online magazines are poorly written, and online writers don't know the first thing about the industry. It, of course, says so with the most delicate of Japanese touches. Score one for Famitsu.
He briefly mentions how Gaming (in Japan) is branching away from a purely console model, and as such the "total game sales" figures are inaccurate. Oddly enough, he doesn't mention that lowered console prices would also give the impression of lower console sales on a per-yen basis. Either way, this seems like an odd technicality wedged between two very broadly relevant opinion pieces.
Finally, he cites how with the subdivision of gaming will require reviewers to step back from what they would like, and review a game based upon what the target audience would like. This is a big challenge for the reviewing industry right now, as you might have two or three FPS gurus on your staff, but do you have a RTFPS guru? One who specifically likes slower FPS game in fantasy settings? How do you review a subgenre accurately if you don't have anyone on your staff who likes that subgenre? Will it receive anything other than an 80? He seems to thing that training will be enough to overcome reviewer bias (or lack thereof), but I would tend to doubt that. Certainly, assembling a wide enough team of connoisseurs will be essential to the success or failure of a review department. But that just dodges the question... How do you objectively review a subjective experience from someone else's viewpoint?
To this, sadly, he has no answer.
The ______ Agenda
real charm of your basic [paper-based] magazine news feature: it takes plain old news and turns it into something you don't mind sitting down and reading for a long time Paper magazines will always have a niche as, unlike online magazines, you can read them on the toilet.
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
IMHO, the greatest charm of the printed magazine is the ability to read it from front to back, back to front, or anywhere in between using the table of contents.
The problems with reading a magazine on the web (or even content sites) is latency and organization. It's still faster to flip a page than to load a page.
-- There is no spoon. Only fork.
I stopped buying game magazines years ago.
The cost of the magazines rose when the PSX hit the market. The demo disks glued to the front were great to begin with but they slowly turned into large adverts rather than showing off technology, graphics and game play.
I also got fed up reading articles I had already read online. I cannot prove plagiarism but the sense of deja vu grew month on month.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
And here's some sexy proof:
" The fighting's not much more fun. Imagine how easy it is to click on a stationary object like a treasure chest while the camera's flailing around. Now imagine how easy it is to hit a moving target while the camera's flailing around. This results in many frustrating situations."
m int=1):
Two excerpts from reviews of the (mediocre) game Mistmare. The game isn't important, but what the reviewers say makes my point.
Gamezone Aug 2003 (http://www.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r19940.htm):
(Review by Justin Raymond)
And everybody's favorite - IGN Sept 2003 (http://pc.ign.com/articles/451/451226p1.html?fro
The fighting isn't really much more fun either. As if trying to click on unmoving objects like static NPCs or chests wasn't hard enough with the camera movement and slow mouse, trying to click on a moving target during combat is even worse. These things end up making combat extremely frustrating experiences, detracting from the decent visuals that would have made it more fun."
(Review by Ken Bartrum)
All I have to say to that is I looooooves me some word of mouth reviews from friends! Here's a big *fuck you* to IGN and they're lack of journalistic sense.
:) It wasn't a bad first post.
And you, of course, responded to that which would become the first +5 informative, because that gives you a much better browsing position and, hence, a much better chance of becoming +5 yourself.
Slashdot: Still the best game in town.
The biggest problem with paper gaming magazines is their amount of time between an article being written and actually being published. If they want to keep their audience, then reviews need to appear before the game is actually released to the public. Being online is the only way that this can be viable. But who really wants to read through an entire magazine online? Not many, but I doubt that most people read gaming mags cover to cover anyways. Especially when the reviews have been online long before the magazine hit the newstand.
Magazines are much more readable than web-pages, frequently- and flipping a page is much faster than waiting for a full screenshot download, even with broadband. Magazines also seem superior for advertisers and more marginal games- why would I bother clicking on a link to a game review of a game I've never heard of, much less clicking on an ad- while with a magazine I'll flip through start to finish and be exposed to all kinds of ads and game reviews I wouldn't have bothered with otherwise. The glossy finish and page layout is nice, and an open magazine takes up more eye real-estate than a 17 or 19-inch monitor.
That said, I don't subscribe to any game magazines or buy them off the rack. Only if I see some back-issues in a thrift store for 50 cents each will I make a purchase.
Magazine are pretty worthless for reviews these days, just because the internet can handle that much better- every game they cover is months away from being finished and exclusive early on access gives them a slight edge over web pages. So it's all just hype machine material, nothing critical, but I don't mind because I enjoy the hype while at the same time I read the real reviews online.
Until I get a computer installed next to my toliet. I will still read videogame magazines.
Seems to be three main points, but I'm not sure any are particularly groundbreaking..
1) Online magazines get information first , but often seem amateur and lack background depth.
Not sure this is anything inherent in the medium. Would Famitsu writers writing reduce in quality merely because it was published online. It's more a commentary on the state of the industry, with online magazine subscriptions still being out of favour with the public.
2) Online gaming is not recognised in current statistics.
But hardly an underground movement in gaming is it. A good deal of big cash projects are underway from most mainstream developers.. who DOESN'T have a MMORPG these days?
3) Gaming genres are subdividing and reveiwers will find it harder to cover all the niche interests.
True enough, but the arising of (niche) celebrity status for writes, artists, and voice artists mentioned in the article mereley suggests magazines take time to list the credits for each game so fans can follow their developers. Similarly to films, people may follow an actor, director or writer and it only requires the reviewer to mention the names involved, and comment on the quality of the experience on offer.
I came to a realization about a week ago when I bought the latest EGM. Included was a demo disc with some previews, clips - the usual stuff. The disc was so lacking, and the editorial comments from the staff were so unprofessional that I shook my head in disgust. I think EGM is great but I immediately tossed that disc in the trash.
:)
I've never bothered subcsribing to a mag, but theres been many months when I've picked up 3-5. OXM, EGM, OPSM, XBN, Gamer - considering the rising price of these mags I've forced myself to stop buying so many. It's nice to hear different opinions and interesting articles, but the amount of the information is so redundant - especiall seeing as I check the popular (and not so popluar) gaming sites every day for information.
Something can be said about holding a nice shiny magazine in your hand, it gives you a nice warm and fuzzy feeling that a static web page can't. Plus they make great bathroom reading material
What I'd love to see is a very robust multimedia disc similar to OXM's format. Developer interviews, loads of previews - and video reviews. The more these discs have to offer, the better. I'd much rather watch DVD quality vids than squinting at the computer screen. Also, exclusive demos are DEFINITELY the way to go.
All this analysis in meaningless. The true reason for videogame magazines is to have something absolutely mindless to read while pinching a loaf.
You know Im right.
no
Games magazines have been plowing the same field for as much as 25 years: news, reviews, previews, features, strategy guides and columns. When they innovate, it's typically in layout and "look." They need to rethink the format to provide content that readers can't find on the web.
On the reporting side, game magazines could adopt a more business-oriented approach and show more aggressiveness in their coverage. They could behave less like trade publications and more like newspapers. They could break stories that aren't handed to them by a publicist. They could report on the industry's foibles when they surface. When a game company goes under, or is called on the carpet by shareholders or the government, they could investigate.
There have been examples of hard-nosed games reporting on the web. On GameCenter, there was a superb piece on how retail space in stores is sold. GameSpot's run at least one excellent story on how a game developer (Trilobyte of 7th Guest and 11th Hour fame) slowly fell apart. But I can't think of a site that does this on a regular basis. And magazines certainly don't.
On the writing side, the mags might take a lesson from the "gaming lifestyle" sites that have sprung up in recent years. There's a whole school of new gaming journalism out there--focused on the gaming experience--and it rarely turns up in game magazines. (Examples include this piece about an unusual light saber duel in Jedi Knight II: Outcast (http://www.extra-life.org.uk/articles/article.php ?id=a37)
and this one about an endearingly pathetic character in Soul Calibur (http://www.robotstreetgang.com/2002_05_12_robotst reetgang_archive.html).)
It's not a perfect form. Sometimes these pieces are self-indulgent and sometimes offer more style than substance. But by ignoring them, the magazines are letting the web steal the first new thing to happen in game writing in 25 years. And they can't afford to do that.
Peter