Slashdot Mirror
The Pointlessness of Current Videogame Journalism
Anonymous Coward writes "TG Daily has its weekly videogaming column up, and this week the author is attacking what he terms The Pointlessness of Current Videogame Journalism. From the article: '...the formulaic, child-minded writing-for-the-lowest-common-marketing-denominator style that encapsulates 99% of the mainstream videogame press is a load of crap ... Rather than being critics who add to the industry as film and music journalists arguably did back in the heady days of the 50's - 70's... videogame journalists are mere extensions of the marketing machine, pushing even the most mediocre of games into a good light with the public in previews and then trashing them for sport to see how many good puns can be dredged out of the 500 words which the author really doesn't want to have to write.'"
Guess that means they are on par with most other entertainment journalism nowadaze. Go Figure.
Thats why when I want to know what a game is really like, I wait for it to release and browse the games message boards to get insight on the game. In the end I trust the community alot more than the press. Yes, alot of message borads are full of crap too, but its seems to be alot easier to select the valuable posts.
http://www.stockmarketgarden.com/
Posted by Zonk no less.
Posting this on Slashdot, of all places...
Le français vous intéresse?
Today the world only wanna the $$$ on the pocket, why I will write a good article to publish into two weeks if I can write a poor article that is printed on every week? It's the business man, accept or leave.
http://www.michel.eti.br
My first exposure to gaming magazines was Nintendo Power and Sega Visions when they first came out. Now _that_ was marketing influenced games journalism. hehe.
Those geeks who motorcycle as well as play video games know the story of the "every column inch stuffed to the gills with advertiser propoganda" magazine very well. So-called moto"journalism" is basically utterly shameless pandering to the major motorcycle manufacturers. The magazines basically say whatever the bike makers want, and will only very infrequently mount any kind of serious criticism. Those that do are quickly wiped off the map for financial reasons. In short, remember this: Even if you subscribe to them, your subscription doesn't come close to paying for the cost of the content in those magazines; the product manufacturer's advertisements do. And thus it is no surprise that the moto rags are transparent mouthpieces for the industry, and have little interest in the reader beyond shoving shiny game ad of the week down their throats.
And the situation is exactly the same with game review magazines.
Don't expect it to change; it's not going to. Until the flow of money is massively re-arranged to come far more from the readers than the manufacturers, the magazines will continue to be shameless advertising and little more.
I've never enjoyed TV video game reviews. Back in my teens when I was playing Gameboy and computer video games, I'd buy magazines and read hint books. Now when I see something come on like Tech TV, I shudder and jump to the remote to change the channel. The reviews are little more than ads for an industry I care so little about these days. Perhaps my priorities have changed too much to enjoy video games like I once did, but do we really need entire channels devoted to advertising video games? Do children even read anymore?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Rather than being critics who add to the industry as film and music journalists arguably did back in the heady days of the 50's - 70's... videogame journalists are mere extensions of the marketing machine.
:)
Emphasis added for stoners
So, is this new? Look at any niche market journal like for stereo equipment, cars, or anything, and tell me how much negative press there is in them.
I'm a recovering audiophile, and I remember when I would read the magazines of the trade, everything they "reviewed" was excellent or at least very good compared to their multi-tens of thousands "reference" system for the money.
Am I the only one who felt blatantly lied to about this game? Every video game publication or TV show hailed this as having an amazing single player campaign. When I sat down to play it I found it to be a boring rehash of the last game. There were many problems with the game that normally would make their way into reviews but these were strangely absent. Clipping and other graphic glitches, horrendous story, repetitiveness, and probably the worst end level I have ever seen. I swear there was some sort of massive pay off made somewhere to game reviewers.
I wish I could elaborate more on what was wrong with Halo2 but it's been awhile since it came out. I can't be the only one to think the single player was poo though.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
There were some rare exceptions like the Die Hard gamer and some of the PC gaming magazines, but for the most part they've always been crap.
Nowadays, you can download demos and watch videos of just about any game online. The reviewer isn't doing much that you can't do yourself, though it might take you slightly longer to download such content. I'm not sure the problem is the writing, I think it's the need. Is game reviewing even necessary? Were reviews this bad back in the early 90's and 80's when gamers didn't have the access to the kind of preview stuff that's out there today?
You have Videogame Journalism (IGN, Gamespot), and then you have Journalism that occasionally touches on Video Games. I don't know that anyone takes those sites seriously, since most games never score below a 7.
I think the latter is much worse, as a lot of the time mainstream news coverage of video games is simply exploitive fear-mongering (take *any* coverage of Grand Theft Auto, for example).
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Personally, I get most of my game info from GameFaqs, which has user reviews and nice overall scoreboards for magazine reviews. The user reviews are sometimes dumb, but you can get a general flavor for a game by looking at the magazine reviews and user reviews. I've still been burned once or twice but at least looking there first can help you avoid the real stinkers.
Also, I love the game info posted at Penny Arcade. Gabe and Tycho have similar tastes in games as I do, so when they love a game it's a pretty safe bet that I'll like it too.
- "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
I see this every time I dare to glimpse at the gaming press. The absolute worst of the worst are the TV shows, like GamerTV, Gamesville, and that old one with the woman with the weird hair. Here's the recipe: too many futuristic "swooshing" animations, episodes repeated ad-infinitum no matter how old they become, review after review of Yet Another 3D Platformer 4, and a clichéd, useless "We give it... 3 out of 5!"-type section.
You will almost never see a game like N, or Uplink reviewed, because they aren't backed by the big cartels like EA, whose latest player name update to FIFA will doubtlessly turn out to be a "worthy addition to this legendary series".
May I recommend http://eurogamer.net/
You won't find any gaming journalism of the same calibre.
I stand corrected :)
No say it isn't so. Sites and magazines wouldn't just print positive reviews of a game or piece of hardware to keep the favor of the content and equipment manufacturers. No all of them are on the up and up and look at the products with unbiased eyes. Oh what the hell am I thinking? If they say a logo is printed offcenter on something they live in fear of not getting the next piece to review. Why is this news?
It's the video games themselves. This references the "heady" reviews of yesteryear. Well, those heady reviews are only responsible in media that are pushing the boundaries and expanding as an art form. I'm an avid player and have many things circulating through my systems at any given time but let's be honest here, video games refuse to become a truly artistic medium. There is no real story telling. People cite RPGs as examples of great storylines but these are nothing more than melodrama. You can't make American Beauty the game. You can't make Eternal Sunshine the game. Well, you could, but no one has yet. So what we're stuck with is journalists who took hours and hours of lit. analysis in college reviewing the same damn racing game over and over.
....and someone had to say it. I completely agree. The quality of videogames in general has taken a nose dive since the cream-of-the-crop 16 bit era. These days, the focus spent marketing games by the publishers far outweighs the more important focus of the developers themselves to develop a game that is actually fun to play. Time and time again, developers are touting games that drop the ball in the fun-factor court. Even 1st class developers like RARE and id are releasing mediocre games when compared to what they previously developed. DOOM 3 and PERFECT DARK ZERO are two prime examples of deleopers dropping the ball. and if you think those two games are anywhere as close to what they previously released, then you need to get your head checked. RARE and id are just two examples. Lets not forget the other 90% of videogame developers out there that nobody follows or even ponders what the next piece of crap they're going to release will be. With all that said, I have to thank Rockstar, Valve, Epic, and Blizzard. Kudos. Keep up the good work.
I would create a sig, if only something of value could be said with just 120 chars.
Can't the same be said for newspapers with respect to political parties and politicians?
with Publishers and want to keep working in the field, so they write puff pieces..and the Author takes them to task for it..then doesn't name names or publications because he doesn't want to burn bridges and wants to keep working in the field?
Heres a quick summary journalistic levels
Trade Publications : worst of the worst would be given away if the publishers were allowed to by their advertisers. Most of the articles are either written by employees of the advertisers, the rest is the lowest cost possible filler.
Review magazines: Especially true of car magazines but holds well for just about everything else. Toyota at one point asked what it would have to do be car of the year and was told buy out the issue. Its a little less blatant these days but no different. For game magazines ask yourself how every fisrt person shooter knockoff can have 4 to 5 stars or an 80% plus rating. Or how someone can select the most influential games of all time have them be 70% consolers and have half life as the rep for FPS games. Consumer reports is the exception but because they focus on so much their quality and conclusions arent as good as they could be
General readership magazines: Review space is pretty much advertising. The Stuff in stuff didn't just wind up there. The toys in t3 arent just picked at random.
Newspapers: Maybe, maybe not
If you wan't good reviews find a blog with coments, and look for it to have trashed stinkers you know about. This is good for anything. I really wish I had done that before I bought a DSM-320 network media player, it pays for hard drives and just look at all the people that own space heaters oops Intel processors.
... I get all my news from GAMEST, Arcadia Monthly and Famitsu. I don't see the problem.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
And they deserve it. C-Net used to be honest, back when they had their TV show, but they turned into a Microsoft mouthpiece and everything was 'great, just great.'
I don't mind when things DON'T get reviewed. There are understandable limitations of time, space and money.
I DO mind when things are reviewed and it just reads like the press release from the company, and the reality is vastly different.
That's when I stop reading.
If you've nothing good to say, then say that you've got nothing good to say. Don't just blather on with the press release in one hand and the tatters of your integrity oozing through the fingers of the other hand.
And if you play something and it SUCKED, I expect to hear about why you thought it sucked and what could be done so it didn't suck so hard.
Sorry but lazy journalism is just PR work and payola.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
In addition to pointing out all the bad journalism out there, these sites help identify blogs and magazines that strive to offer better writing and reviews. Visit those sites and click on a few ads. Marketing-driven articles continue to appear because game publishers pay the bills. That only changes if game mags and sites can develop business models where they are accountable primarily to you - their readers - rather than game companies.
RichM
Data Center Knowledge
Hence why he carries a security blanket.
For game reviews I tend to go to Metacritic. Metacritic aggregates critical scores and generates an average score number, which is a valuable indicator of critical consensus.
This was among the most poorly-written "professional" opinion pieces I've ever seen. Does TG Daily not have a copy editor? Does this McKenna kid actually get paid to write?
o r style that encapsulates 99% of the mainstream videogame press
the formulaic, child-minded writing-for-the-lowest-common-marketing-denominat
Encapsulates? That word does not mean what you think it means.
Starting in the most critical area of the videogame press's remit and where I have the most self-doubt about my own writings in the past
Is this English?
McKenna, I'm sure that you had point in there somewhere. From what I was able to decipher from your article, I'm pretty sure I agree with you, more or less. But I guarantee that you'd benefit from a couple of years of formal education in composition, and your work would certainly benefit from a couple of studious edits, preferably from someone else.
And for Pete's sake, lay off the parentheses, ellipses, generalizations, overuse of subordinate clauses, overuse of multiple descriptive adjectives per clause, and the like. Thankfully, you didn't use "quite" or "a tad" as qualifiers. You did, however, use "rather" several times; those three qualifiers are among the strongest indicators of amateur writing.
I'd sooner read well-written marketing copy than poorly-written criticism.
www.kitchengeek.com -- Nosh for
I remember back in the early days of Planet Quake, when Bastard (Basty) was running the site. This was of course before Gamespy transformed from being a little ping tool, into a giant marketing juggernaught. Quake lovers like myself would collect in #planetquake and chat about the latest mod, hang out on servers and submit news to contribute to the (then) growing online Quake community.
I did a lot of mods myself. Some I would have liked to have finished, but the ones I did finish all collect dust now. (and some of them collected dust THEN)
At the same time Bluesnews was also a great place to find out awesome insights to the whole Quake scene.
Look at these two sites now, and all you can see is marketing.
They both, arguably, sold out. I don't know why... maybe they like affording new computers from Alienware, or maybe they just like the concept of selling their souls. Another person who sold out bigtime was Dakota, the CTF guy that some of you might remember as the founder of Captured.com (which is now closed). He joined Gamespy and is running a large part of that company now. He used to post amazing CTF news, mods, tourney info and stuff.
Vid journalists all get bought up by the industry.
But the games changed, too. It used to be a lot of fun to play Quake or Thunderwalker on servers, but then other games came along and stole the show, thus putting an end to the tight-knit community. Each new game fractured the core community until, for quite a while, there was no cohesion.
All good things come to an end, and I think that is how we really know they were good.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
What's your point? Every industry has its magazines that are nothing more than repackged advertising. In some industries, that is actually a good thing. People buy certain magazines for the adverts.
I'm not sure how or why you're comparing PC Games with Motorcycles.
You can get a full experience of (most) PC Games with several days of dedicated play.
How can you expect a comparable review of a motorcycle?
Off the top of my head, the best reviews I can recall are where Caranddriver takes a car and makes it a daily driver for x0,000 miles.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I've found a refinment of this, which actually works exceptionally well at finding good games. you find somone who is an absolutely ravenous fan of the game and then seeing how often they spell words such as "u" or make immature arguments about other games. A 0 out of 5 randomly sampled people tends to indicate a game worth playing, assuming one tolerates the genre in the first place.
Some reviews are good. The ones done by journalists that have some experience in the general field of journalism. They know how to write something interesting and meaningful.
The problem with "Internet Journalism" is that for the most part, you don't need any of those qualifications. You can pretty much just pick up a keyboard and write and article. I'm surprised at the loads of junk you find on the "big" game review sites to tell you the truth - you'd think they would want people that can write well. But I guess they don't really care, as long as people come to the sites.
I believe that most game reviews are childish, boring, redundant, and seemingly written by high school kids. While a review is, by it's very nature, an opinion piece of sorts - many of these game reviews are simply too opinionated and biased to be considered anything but a weblog. Unfortunately, they're not presented as such.
Even the hardware review sites like C|Net are really horrible at accurately reviewing anything. They'll get facts wrong, they won't figure out a feature so they say it's not there, etc.
Just like anything else, you just need to understand the source and know that anything published online should be viewed with a level of skepticism.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
... I say, "Thank you."
I've been telling my friends this kind of thing for a while... My opinion of the video game industry at large is already very negative, and my opinion of their bitches - yes, I said bitches, because that's what your usual video game journalist seems to be; an unwitting, unwilling bitch of a the magazine's marketing department and the 'big studios', fellating video games and companies he or she may not even like - in the press is even worse. This article sums the case up nicely. Video game magazines suck.
To restate some of the points made in the article, the average 'professional game reviewer and journalist', whose job it is to insult our taste and intelligence with their awful articles and reviews, is very juvenile and apparently unskilled in the field of journalism in general. This may or may not be an accurate portrayal of their skill as journalists - they may in fact be instructed to convey themselves as though their balls have yet to drop - but it doesn't make me think higher of them, considering that they appear to be lowering themselves to the level of mere children in order to please the marketing department. I can barely stomach most video game journalism, because it sounds like I'm listening to a pretentious, hyperactive twelve year old rave on about a new game his parents bought for him and then compliment his own 'skill' as a gamer, even though he hasn't played the game past the first level yet, and probably can't. I know the magazines are trying to relate to teens and pre-teens, because that's where the money's really at... but give me a break. This isn't 'PSM 4Kidz!'. This is supposed to be a witty, intelligent, professionally written publication, not some snot nosed brat's 5th grade English project about what video games he got for Christmas.
The reviews really get to me in particular. The previews, too, because they're so vapid and superficial, often praising only the visual elements of the games instead of telling me whether or not I'll be able to enjoy it sober, but the reviews are the best. My friends are frequently let down by the magazines, and yet they still eat it up. (Shame on them.) Each time it's the same story. They get hooked in by the hype in the previews, read these amazing reviews, and then go buy the game... And what happens? Two out of three times the game sucks ass, and they wind up feeling cheated. The reviews are, in my eyes, commercials. They're written like commercials, they flow like commercials, the pages are even set up like commercials. This is advertising, not an honest review, and it shows. Sometimes the reviews aren't even remotely accurate, falsely portraying certain elements of the games they cover to make them look better. This is why I wait to read user reviews of games online or learn about them through the grapevine. I'd rather learn about a game from somebody who has actually played it, not some two-bit hack of a journalist who's essentially being paid to lie.
Hearing this all come from a real insider - an actual video game journalist - is very refreshing, and I'm glad that he's finally coming clean about it with himself. That's the kind of honesty I'd like to see more often in the publications! Movie reviews could use a bit of that, too, but that's another story for another day. This guy really hits the nail on the head, and it's good to see a reviewer do some reviewing of his own, and take a good look at his work and what he and his colleagues have really been contributing to... It's a shame he might not have a job much longer. Maybe he'll go and start his own magazine or something...
Computer Games magazine. Written by adults, for adults. Go ahead, check it out next time you're at B&N or Borders, read a review on a new game, then shuffle over to PC Gamer or CGW and read a review about the same game. You'll see what I mean.
http://www.cgonline.com/
There is simply too much glass..
The British magainze Edge is pretty decent. There was a US version called Next-Generation that I read about 5-10 years ago, but I don't think it sold very well and it eventually went away. Next-Generation was actually pretty stingy with their five-star ratings in their early days, and the writing was excellent.
A couple of years ago when I was working with a big (gamespy-big, at the time) computer-game network.
We received a review-copy of a bull-riding game.
The reviewer in charge of the genre was amazed by the pure idiocy behind the game, and reviewed it VERY thoroughly - it got 4% on our review-scale.
We didn't actually believe we'd ever get another game from that publisher (ever), but lo and behold; we did.
The second time around, they scored 18% (mainly due to music by Lynyrd Skynyrd..).
My point?
There are sites writing honest reviews - most of them go offline due to financial reasons.
In other words; when you find a site you like - let their editors know, and do your damndest to keep them alive.
I whole-heartedly agree with this entire article. I used to subscribe to Computer Gaming World, one of the finest computer gaming rags I was ever exposed to in the early 90s. But the writing degraded into juvenile drivel; employees were seemingly let go (Loyd Case being one fine example), and fewer and fewer staff members had to cover more and more stories. The apathy of these people was apparent, as each article got dumber every month.
So I stopped my subscription. I was unwilling to put up with the crap I was reading. Many of today's websites aren't that much better, and I only glance at reviews now (usually by zipping to the end to get the "final verdict"). Here's to hoping that someone will catch on and start writing a decent magazine (or whatever other piece of media) so that consumers can make sound, educated decisions.
Go, and never darken my towels again! -- Rufus
I write for a magazine, 2000 words per article each month. I wish I had this guys skill at writing absolutely nothing in 976 words. It would save me days each month
Nothing to see here, move on.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
1) Create an indexed customer review structure like newegg's ...
2) Implement a strong moderation system like Wikipedia's
3) Find a way to compensate and reward outstanding reviewers.
4) Make this service easily accesible and simple to use.
5)
6) Consumers profit huge.
If a system like that became popular(and useable) it would force game publishers to hire better talent and more of it, instead of using 30% of their production budget to brainwash us into buying their 3rd rate products.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
Am I the only one who felt blatantly lied to about this game? ... When I sat down to play it I found it to be a boring rehash of the last game.
That's called a difference of opinion, not being lied to. Ebert & the other guy don't lie to you when they say an artsy movie is excellent, but you found it to be a rehash of an anime movie in your collection.
This could be the problem with video game journalism: story/fun-factor vs technical issues. If I give 4 stars to a low budget movie with a good story, great acting and an obvious amateur look and feel, does that compare to a 4 star big budget movie with a good story, great acting and a professional look and feel?
How many of your favorite all-time games had a great story and very poor graphics?
Best Free Utilities for Windows
lol
As a developer in the video game industry, every year I'm disappointed in the consistency of reviews as well as general fact checking. I've had a reviewer downgrade the score of one of my games because his cd rom drive was faulty. Recently, a review completely made up a name of a developer on the game, switched the job positions of another role, as from doing an 'interview' - well, some one wasn't paying attention. Generally, most previews of games have 'facts' that are completely made up. This later hurts us because we are now not 'including features promised'. In all, the whole video game journalism industry is a bit corrupt, in that they know that if reviews are too low, they won't get ad revenue.
I'm not sure if he wrote it or not, but the first page of the reviews section was about their ratings system.
They sum up readers perceptions of game ratings, like this:
I'm sure it's somehow relevant.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Oh, an anonymous coward is being intellectually lazy and cynical about an article on slashdot, whilst forgetting that it's also a site for general discussion about things that geeks care about. Colour me suprised. Why is this news?
Rgasuya aata! : I have been coding Perl and cannot tell where my fingers are now!
There just hasn't been a good game magazine. Especially considering that I buy solely imports and there are no longer any magazines that offer reviews of any kind on import games. And import magazines are actually more annoying to purchase than the games in many ways...and they're not necessarily that great either. So really if I could get a band of people together and write something that actually sounds decent and has a nice layout for a game magazine I could be rich eh?
As a person who earns his living making video games, video game reviewing has always been a sore spot.
We read all of the reviews. All of them. IGN, Gamespot, Famitsu, Edge, Joystick101, The Atlanta Herald... you name it we've read it. This is where we get our impresson of people's impression of the game. This is where we get fodder to make alterations to future games. And you know what, it's disheartening when nearly every review gets at least one thing factually wrong. It's disheartening when the reviewer clearly hasn't played more than 15 minutes into the game that you just spend 16 months creating. And it's disheartening when the reviewer keeps talking about boobies and poop and fart jokes like he was a 12 year old on the playground.
One of the most insightful pieces I've read talked about how Half-Life 2 used darkness to symbolize safety and bright, light areas as a sign of danger. But this was Game Developer magazine talking about art direction, not a reviewer talking about the game itself. Maybe it is too much to ask for a reviewer to take as in-depth a look at a game as a developer would, but there is direction to be had here. Compare and contrast with other titles, plot developments, gameplay structures, etc. Give insight into what the developers were trying to achieve and what they created. Put the game into context. Even Ebert will delve a little bit into the movie school theory behind the movies.
Even as simple sources of opinions, reviewers frequently fall down. Afraid of "offending" any publishers, they don't say anything negative about certain titles. Afraid of stepping out of line, they keep their scores in line with everyone else's. I saw a review the other day that said "X may very well be the best game available on the PS2." He then gave it a 70%, same as everyone else.
There is a lot of room for innovation and insight in video game reviews. Hopefully somebody will pick up that opportunity and run with it.
The ______ Agenda
FWIW most biker rags tend to review only the aspects of bikes that can be figured out in a couple hours of riding, and then only because that's what their readership is interested in. Unlike cars, bikes tend to be a luxury purchase rather than transportation. Riders are generally more interested in 0-60 times, weight distribution, maneuverability, etc. They don't care how the bike will be in 20K miles because they're probably going to sell it after 10K.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
The video game industry and media are not like other medias, this is particularly with regard to things like Previews and Reviews. As he mentions video game magazines are 1/3 or more filled with previews. Having worked in the print side of the video game media in the past I can tell you that you can't say anything negative about a product in a "preview" without being complained at by marketing managers, product managers and PR people all of whom will threaten to withdraw advertising or support from your publication if you continue to do so since the game is only a preview. Similarly relationships with game companies are always tense, generally speaking games are ranked on a scale of 5-10 not 1-10. A game rated 5 is as good as being ranked 0 since the average game (use gamerankings.com which indexes magazine and large website reviews as an example) gets around a 7. The reason this is the case has a lot to do with the fact that if a company comes back to you as a reviewer (or your editor) and says "We're upset our game was given score X" your editor can always say "Well, 5 out of ten is average" when in reality it's not.
A prime example of this is Doom 3. Once some of the original preveiws gave it a luke-warm reception, it seemed that everyone of other websites had somewhat of a "copy-cat" opinion of the game. Granted the game wasn't perfect, but after so much, they seemed to be nit-picking. It really came off as the usual cheesy "cater to the crowd", and dogpile the unpopular guy.
An exampled on the positive end of the spectrum was Half-Life 2. Yes the game has many strong points, but it's almost as if the reviews were afraid to mention the weak ones (at least with the same strong emphasis that was put on Doom 3's shortcommings). The fact that the game was short, had server problems on launch, slight ambiguity in the storyline, and was far too easy for a $55 game was barely even mentioned, and the game was hailed as the greatest of all time.
My point is this: the majortiy fo the game reviews suck, because in order to truely give a good reveiw, you have to be impartial - not report what you think the public wants to hear.
PC Gamer prides itself in writing reviews when a game comes out, not waiting for patches since when you buy the game, you're stuck with it for weeks if it is a lemon until a patch finally arrives, thus encouraging publishers to not release a game til its ready.
... and spent only about 2 sentances describing that the game may have been released early in an 'unpolished' and 'slightly buggy' state !!!!
... which there was none, it was purely buggy programming. hundreds were very pissed off that they had trusted the great Sid Meier name and been screwed over simply so that CIV4 could launch before AOE3.
I'm not sure when the last time they actually followed the practice was, but i'm guessing it's been years.
Take CIV4 for example.
I did them a favour of informing them of how a significant percentage of gamers could not play the game because of brutal bugs that get worse as the game progresses. And I warned them that if they ignored it, they'd loose me as a reader as well as everyone else I could pass the word on to. They obviously didn't care.
For many, excitedly buying CIV4 when it came out meant nasty graphics problems ending in a crash to desktop or bluescreen. Playing with the large map settings made the game entirely unplayable beyond the early stages with turns that took exponentially longer until the crashes happen.
For at least 2 months gamers were subjected to this bullshit with almost no word out of 'gaming god' Sid Meier's Firaxis.
Then what do you know, a miracle happened. A patch was released and the game became playable, and was finally the game we expected.
I think it was the next damn day (gee what a coincidence) that I found the PC Gamer issue with a massive review suddenly now available which expounded on what an incredible game it is, gave it a very high mark in lines with the past CIV games
They mention that a few gamers had posted about problems in a forum. No mention was made about the wide spread crash to desktop problem. This game deserved a mark in the low 40's, not mid 90's.
It's total bullshit. hundreds complained on the CIV4 fansite forums. hundreds tried to find any link between their hardware and the crashes
So I'm sticking to my word. I'm not buying PC Gamer anymore and several of my friends are doing the same. A couple of them are serious CIV fans and will not be giving their money to Firaxis over the way they've treated their fans.
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
what about the pointlessness of writing about the pointlessness of gamer journalism... don't we all know this already?
Remember when Johnny Wilson was Editor in Chief of Computer Gaming World, and the mag was on cheap paper? I'd gladly take cheap paper over cheap words.
2. To express in a brief summary; epitomize: headlines that encapsulate the news. Fits just fine!
If you read beyond a 3rd-grade level, yes it is. Start by looking up the noun form of "remit". The "and" conjuction does not join an independent clause ("where I have the most self-doubt ..." is dependent) and therefore does not deserve a comma. It's a long sentence, but I think if you study it enough, it'll be clear.
Maybe if everyone was sufficiently literate, there'd be less of the craptastic journalism that the article decries.
I think you've got that reversed. And maybe that's the reason he's writing the article and you're writing incorrect comments on slashdot.
As your comment shows, the mainstream press panders to idiots for a reason: they've got a wide audience.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
What got me was the marketting for Metal Gear Solid 2. Talking about how the original rocked the world the original, with it's astounding graphics, and "movie-like story2. Come on - Even by PS1 standards, the game didn't look astounding, and the plot was paper thin with terrible acting, exisiting only to give context for the game. I mean I'm sure it was a pretty good game, but that was because of the original game mechanics. Yet most of the reviews I read seemed to be happy to parrot this piece of marketting drivel. I gave up having any faith in the games media by then.
the games mags I read in the 1980's actually reviewed the game. The game was analysed in depth. Interesting gameplay mechanics were mentioned because they were interesting gameplay mechanics rather than unique selling points demanded by marketting. Games journalism independence went away when the consoles came in.
Really. It amazes me that anybody believes anything anyone says at all. Unless you have good reason to think someone is telling the truth, you should probably just assume thier lying. This goes for everyone: journalists, marketers, employers, employees, politicians, salesmen, contractors, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
This article should come with instructions to breathe between each sentence, they're so long.
Most of the things that look like paragraphs are actually a single sentence. I agree with other comments about the quality of this guy's writing. Glass houses, and all that.
It isn't 'readers vs. advertisers', which is the impression you give.
How do you think the advertising rates are calculated? One very, very important factor is the amount of paid subscribers (or dedicated readers) a magazine has.
The flow of money ultimately -does- come from readers. The same as anything else in our capitalist society - consumer, ultimately, is king.
The state of video game journalism is the central tradgedy of my life, too. I lie awake at night moaning over it. It destroyed my marriage. It cost me my job. It drove me to intraveinous drug use. I see children playing and people laughing and think, "Look at them, how could they, HOW COULD THEY, with the state of video game journalism the way it is?!?"
Increasingly, national mainstream journalism has slowly had to come to terms with the fact that video games aren't just a quick fad for the kiddies, and are here to stay. They're even trying to do pieces that stray from simply "The Social Ramifications of Video Games," an important topic, to be sure, but one that's getting terribly repetative and tends to degenerate into a fire and brimstone sermon on Grand Theft Auto. I listen a lot to NPR, especially programs like Fresh Air, which do hour-long in-depth interviews and discussions with artists, politicians, entrepreneurs and other influential types. Generally, the quality of their interviews and the depth of their discussions is usually quite high, but every time they do a piece on video games—a topic they're trying out more and more—they fall flat on their face, and the result is embarrassing.
For one, only a small genre of video games exist in their eyes: online multiplayer games with audiences of generally wide demographics. Single-player games do not exist, console games NEVER exist, any games with narrative structure do not exist (and this is probably the area that I feel is in the most dire need of critique), games made outside of America do not exist (????). I can't count how many times the shows have fallen back on discussions revolving around the popularity of WoW and online versions of The Sims. It seems that the entire show is spent on trying to legitimize games as an adult "endeavor" (notice how I didn't use the word entertainment). All discussions tend to point toward the idea of gaming as a new form of social interaction, without any regard to the other 3/4s or so of gaming, which is a form of escapism, though still in its infancy, is more akin to literature, film, and other "legitimate" forms of art and entertainment.
I recently took a college course on the unique philosophical implications of film, it was a wounderfully thought-provoking class with hours of open discussion, and it openned up some new ways of thinking about the genre. A few of my classmates were gamers, and we would end up staying 45 minutes afterwords, doing our own little colloquium on games. Because of our interest in film, conversations generally revolved around exploring games as an extension of narrative media, along with the implications of interactivity. We quickly realized that there was a couse-full of material. Had I not been a graduating senior, I could imagine that we would have done a student-run colloquium on the subject.
So it comes to no surprise, that I'm a bit tired of always hearing games perceived, by mainstream media in thoughtful discusions, as ONLY a form of social interaction; again, a ligitimate topic, but also something that has little relevance to me, as well as a substantial percentage of the gaming community. The stigma against solitary gaming is great, so I can understand that in attempt to try to legitimize games as an adult endeavor, journalists try to avoid the concept altogether. That said, it also avoids a substantial part of the gaming community: the offline roll-players, the survival horror enthusiasts, the adventure gamers, and the like. At this point, the narrative trends in games are piss-poor, to put it lightly, and are in dire need of critique, something that no media seems interested in tackling, which really concerns me.
Seriously, I thought the constant ass-raping of Rockstar was more interesting and relevant than this crap.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Funny. I've never had a virus, piece of spyware, or indeed, an actual person hack my home linux box. My work machine, on the other hand, is a continuous subject of cleaning and maintenance...
No, I'm pretty sure the US Cert study is skewed. Note that They count up the flaws for ALL flavors of unix/linux, and then press that number against windows. Also note that windows only gets its core application flaws listed, while *n?x gets its whole application database.
Yeah. Skewed. Filter it and Linux comes out about 3-4x as secure as any windows distro.
110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
I enjoy playing them (quite a bit, in fact), but worrying about the state of the journalism surrounding them, well, I just can't see why anyone cares.
I always at least tried to be honest with game reviews - if I thought something stank, I said so (I think the lowest review score - as the final percentage rating - I ever gave was 3%), and while previews had to be more informative than opinionated, I generally took the piss a bit if the game deserved it. There's only so many cutsey platform game previews a man can write without going mad.
Problem was, not only did certain publishers throw shit-fits and threaten to withhold future games if they got bad reviews (or sometimes actually go through with the threat: there was a period of about six months where my mag had to buy games by one publisher - fuck it, it was Ocean - because they wouldn't send us code), but as time went by they also started getting nasty about previews as well. Basically, they wanted their press releases to be reprinted, including the captions they'd written for the screenshots. Er, no. Not going to happen. So the PRs would go over my head and threaten to pull advertising - not just from my mag, but from other titles as well. Fun fun fun.
Since things were only going to get worse as the publishers ate each other and got more powerful, I decided to get out as soon as I got the chance.
There are some mags whose editorial policies I still respect - Edge, PC Zone, GamesTM - but many of the rest have fallen into the 'exclusive cover/fawning preview/minimum review score of 85%' routine/trap because it's the path of least resistance to ensure they can get product to cover.
(And I was never offered a free holiday in return for a good score. Bastards!)
You must think in Russian.
I believe the article was in GD Magazine a few months ago, and as such doesn't exist online. However, there is a lot of great stuff on Game Developer's online site, Gamasutra.com, like this little gem about Half Life 1
l l_pfv.htm
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/19991210/birdwe
If you dig deep enough in your history books, you'll find all kinds of examples of this behavior -- even through the "heady days of the 50's - 70's." I'm not saying this is good, but I am saying that this is neither new or shocking. As such, I don't see why this is news-worthy.
/dev/random
The Onion's A.V. Club has very good game reviews. They don't take themselves too seriously, and they answer the only question I care about with a game - should I buy it?
They also have the extremely entertaining Games of Our Lives, which consists of very funny reviews of old games (20+ years in most cases) written by Wil Wheaton.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/ is sometimes worth a read, and is at least trying to be more professional about things.
I read official playstation magazine. http://opm.1up.com/ The print version, not the online portion.
I find their reviews to be fair and on target for the kind of games I want to play. My time for gaming is very limited because of work, so I usually only set my sights on 4.5 to 5 star games because I want the time to be spent on very high quality games.
In the last issue they compiled a list of "games you must play before you die" on the playstation and PS2, etc. I "own" most of those games and agree almost completely with the list the made, they were and ARE very important games for those respective platforms.
Not a dynamic perspective, granted, but I generally get what I need from the magazine.
- Life is what keeps you occupied while you are waiting to die
I used to read GamePro religiously for like 6 years up until about 5 years ago. It was at about this time that the magazine started to change. The editors started to get nasty attitude problems, the magazine began to be engulfed by advertizements and the content started to suck badly. The day I stopped reading GamePro is the day when I read Scary Larry replying to some poor kid in the mail section of the mag asking some sincere question. The big fat old bastard totally verbally abused this kid. In fact, the whole mail section was filled with Scary Larry's bitter comments. I read a few issues after that and noted the same behaviour. I have not read a gamepro since then.
"There is also an arrogance which runs through many in the industry, with the replies to letters and feedback from readers who do not agree with the stance taken by a publication reading more like cheap put-downs as opposed to real responses."
This little tidbit that the guy in the story mentioned is 100% true and I would not be surprised if he was speaking about GamePro. I'd like to mention that I defected to EGM afterwards, but they are a victim of the same problems. Such a shame too. EGM and GamePro were THE gaming magazines to read in the 16bit days.
Recently I have tried two game demos that were praised by web gamemags; despite the fact that the demos were awful. I am speaking of "Bet on soldier" and "Starship troopers". I wish previews would have actually been critical about these releases. Granted; were dealing with demos where - but its unlikely that the final releases will rock, if the demos are this poor. As earlier posts point out: previews seem like nothing more than hype and marketing. I used to read a lot of game mags back in the c64 / amiga days, but i find that current online mags are too afraid to put any clout in their reviews - except the occasional stomp on a small software house release - or things that are blatantly bad. I think mediocracy should be pointed out - even though the mediocre release happens to be that of microsoft.
- Mad, ingenous - they've both left you puzzled -
"And the situation is exactly the same with game review magazines."
Not all mags were total mouthpieces, I think the best gaming rags (when they first started out) were GamePro and Electronic gaming monthly, I used to get stuff like Nintendo power for a while mostly for info on new games/codes and stuff. In the earlier EGM and Gamepro days they'd trash games pretty handily and hand out shit scores.
>Shouldn't the 8's and 9's be reserved for the 1 in a 100 that really is brilliant
Perhaps you're not familiar with the American culture that forces ratings to be skewed toward the upper extremes. In the US, students are given letter grades that correspond to percentages. If your average score is 90%, you get an A (or A-, depending on the scale). 80% is a B, 70% is a C (* some use 65%), and anything less than that is considered a failure. Partial credit is often given for incorrect answers, so it is rather difficult to get a zero (0) if you put in a nonzero amount of effort.
In school, term papers and projects are typically graded in a subjective manner, with A meaning "excellent", B meaning "above average", C meaning "average/satisfactory" and F meaning "unsatisfactory". When teachers translate these scores into numerical grades, they preserve the original percentage mapping. Since the highest passing grade is 70+30=100 points, many teachers are unlikely to give a failing grade below 70-30=40 points as long as the student turns in something that at least resembles a complete assignment.
When the student reaches high school/college, many of their classes grade "on the curve". Although there are many different implementations of this grading method, most involve using a predefined mean in the C range. Thus about ~1/10 get A's, ~1/4 get B's, ~1/2 get C's and ~1/6 of the class fails (though again it's rather difficult to get less than a 40 if you even attempt the assignment/exam).
As a result of this grading system, when the typical American is given the choice to rate something on a given scale from 0-10, they'll rate it as F:4.0-6.5, C:6.5-7.9, B:8.0-8.9, A:9.0-10.0. This can be clearly seen when you observe that the average score on IMDB is 6.7. You can also see this by visiting hotornot. Go there and try to rate something honestly. Your scores will not match the averages of thousands of votes. You'll find that any mildly attractive female will have at least an 8, and the ugliest of the uglies are only mid 4's (* this is also complicated by horny teen boys voting 10 for attractive women and 0 for men and ugly women).
Anyway, this is basically a longwinded way of saying that most Americans will view an 8 as a "pretty good" but nowhere near "excellent" score. As for your comment about percentages, I can only say this: percentage of what? (hint: there are thousands of substandard games that never achieve mainstream notoriety; however, if you were to include them in the rating system, even at a mean 5, standard deviation of 1, you'll still see the mainstream games getting scores in the 7-9 range).
I have not seen or even played Halo2; however, I find it very hard to believe that it could possibly deserve less than a C (mid 7's) for its gameplay. If that were so, it would not have sold a single copy after the first week.
Isn't it inevitable that many game reviews are childish and shallow when many of the games reviewed are equally childish and shallow? You wouldn't expect a detailed structural and emotional analysis in a review of American Pie 4, why would you expect it in a review of Quake 4?
that I have found, which does treat games and gaming industry as a new art form, is the Russian "game.exe", in existance for over 10 years already, approximately 100 pages every month, reviewing the new releases, interviewing gaming industry professionals (from Levelord to Peter Molyneux), tracking the gaming industry and its companies - who bought whom and what it spells for the gamer, etc.
Some of it is what you would expect any magazine to write about games, and some (especially the reviews and general outlook on gaming) stems from the point of view that a game is - in its best case - an art form.
While I agree with the point made (anyone remember that horrid american magazine, Electronic Gaming Monthly ? 100% pictures & hype and no content), there are still some gems out there. One of them is Edge, which I have read from issue 1 and is in my opinion the best gaming mag out there. Even though they do sometimes go overboard (anyone remember when they gave super mario 64 a perfect 10?).
;)........
All in all I find british gaming mags to be of better quality than their american counterparts. However I do find it pathetic when the video game companies themselves try to push drivel down our throats. Anyone remember the Club Nintendo Magazine? That was SO lame
Actually, there was at least a bit of good video game press - around the time the PS and Nintendo 64 were at their hight, there was a magazine called Next Generation (ironically enough). They had great articles, a full spectrum of system coverage, and I thought fair reviews.
They eventually devolved into the IGN web site we have today, the morlocks to Next Generation's exalted heights of civilized gaming coverage. My personal low point of the new gaming media was buying the IGN DVD coverage from E3, which had the most embarrassing (for IGN) coverage I've ever seen of booth babes - it looked as if they had handed the camera to a highschooler who kept panning down and zooming in, if you know what I mean.
If you were a female interested in gaming right now, the gaming press is simply not for you and I don't know when it will be.
Interestingly, from the Wiki link I posted it appears the brand is back as a new website - which makes a lot of sense as the name itself is so topical. It appears pretty clean in design and perhaps will offer a more low-key approach to gaming than the XtreemToTheMax sites we see elsewhere now.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Well, I had 5 mod points, so I modded this one overrated (5 informative is too high; I'll say why in a second), and -- before clicking "moderate", decided to check out one of the underposts.
Naturally, a long-standing slashdot-bug that I had forgotten about, changed my mod to "underrated". I can't change the mod back to what I wanted, so I'm going to cancel it with a post.
Here's why I say the post is overrated:
Trade publications are *not* trash. Maybe trade publications in marketing-driven industries such as videogames are trash, but for technical subjects, I find trade publications to be remarkably informative.
I work in the precast/prestressed concrete industry. The articles they write tell about one PCC-PSC company dealing with problems with cold. That's actually pretty useful information.
For videogames, if you had a true trade publication, it wouldn't tell you what the latest videogame craze was, and what it's like playing the game.
It would instead tell you about the latest coding tricks for speeding up set-modifiable binary spatial partition processing; or about new algorithms for tying real-time original computer-arranged music (and indeed stuff that sounds like a good track) to the actual game play.
*That's* what kind of info you should expect from a trade publication. If it doesn't contain stuff like that, at least one good article per magazine, and usually 2-3, then you shouldn't call it a trade publication. Call it an advertising circular.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Am I the only one who finds it a bit strange that the author of the article wants his ex-colleagues to write better and more useful (p)reviews although he admits that it would probably lose them their jobs... and then refuses to name any names himself so he won't shoot himself in the foot with respect to possible future job offers? I's say this is a case of: put your money where your mouth is, sonny!
The problem is that games are really hard to review. Because what one person finds great, another person finds untenable.
A good example is Resident Evil 4. It got Game of the Year from several different publications. I rented it.
There is no way I would ever recommend Resident Evil 4 as game of the year, I couldn't even stand playing it for an hour. That's for one reason and one reason alone. Here it is.. are you ready?
You can't move and shoot at the same time.
Read that again. As soon as you pull out your gun, you lose the ability to move.
At that point, I don't care about the story, the graphics, the sound, or anything. The game is absolutely unplayable.
Only one review I read even mentioned the fact that pulling out your gun (or an axe, or any weapon) will switch you to "aim mode" where you can't move. How could they not mention that?
Well, probably because the reviewer is *used* to playing Resident Evil games. The entire series has a history of horrible control schemes.
Games are hard to review because your experience with them depends on your experience with other games. You're inadvertantly comparing RE4 with RE3, and the fact that the camera is over-the-shoulder in RE4 made it a little easier to move around compared to RE3... so your relative experience got a little better.. not worse.
Discern whether someone has an interest in telling you a lie.
If you can verify a small part of what someone tells you, do it.
Are they open to questions and discussion. Are they willing to get specific. Or do they speak in generalities and their flaws behind fake anger, mockery and showmanship.
Are they asserting more than seems reasonable, or do they clearly delimit what is known and unknown.
A web of communication between people is actually a pretty good way to look at the truth if a low enough percentage of them have ulterior motives and a high enough percentage of them are in a position and are willing to check some facts.
Play Command HQ online
Yet, I read and subscribe to several magazines that cover games and hardware. I find that you have to take everything with your own side. I appreciated Quake 4, and Doom 3 for the simple fact that I enjoyed the previous games.
I read the reviews of Black & White 2, and still I find the game to be a challenge and a time consumer. I just recently loaded Battle for Middle Earth and felt compelled to finish the whole thing. Yet, Stubbs the Zombie (which garnered good to great reviews) while fun to play was WAY to short to be worth the money paid to play (finished it in under 6 hours.) No review I read said anything about the length of play, and for the $50, I would expect a bit more than an afternoon worth of playing
If you PLAY the games as a diversion, then the reviews can help as long as you know the style and format of the reviewers. Some games are rated WAY too high, however that reviewer could be 'more into' that genre. Again, common sense goes a long way to determining and weeding out the shills and company line reviews. Example of this is prime in Civ IV. Did not like nor play the previous games, so saw no way it should be given 94% (or better) that reviewers gave it. However, that was what they saw it to be and how they can appreciate the genre of the game.Common sense and knowing what YOU like to play go a long way in how a game rates.
You keep going until you die..."Me".
Have a 'DUMP' logo of a man squatting they put on top of many reviews. They are very good- many months the highest score will be low 80s- very few games score 90s and also they print secondary reviews from readers who disagree with the magaine review.
kin242.net
I will admit that I don't know much about the hardcopy game magazines. Those definitely seem to be pretty substance-free, at least from the few times I've glanced through one. However, I think that some of the online game sites are actually quite good. For example, Gamespot, which I've seen trashed here in a few comments on other topics, does as excellent job of reviewing most games. They tend to be pretty harsh as well. For example, in their most recent 14 reviews, they gave an average score of 5.8 (out of 10) which represents the craptacular quality of recent games. Like Hollywood, the gaming industry has fallen into a pretty serious funk, with little or no innovation.
I also give Gamespot a lot of credit for pointing out such gems as Darwinia, which they reviewed in import form long before it was available in the US. And, while they certainly did their fair share of hyping the Xbox 360, I think much of the aversion to that on Slashdot stems from the cultural bias here against Microsoft. As the owner of a (thus far) non-crashing, non-scratching Xbox 360, I have been pretty impressed with the interface and initial set of games. The ability to download new content, including entire games, is a major step forward for consoles and may herald the further decline of PC gaming. That's assuming the gaming industry as a whole doesn't continue to screw itself...but I digress.
As another example of this article's general inaccuracy, I refer to the author's statements about how Half-Life 2 reviews were more concerned with the gravity gun and water reflection than the gaming environment. Gamespot's Half-Life 2 review spent exactly one paragraph talking about the gravity gun. They spent the majority of the article talking about the game's environments, AI, storyline and pacing. They also went over the game's engine in a fair amount of detail, which is particularly relevant given the original Half-Life's heavy modder following.
Anyway, this article points out a legitimate problem in much of our media--namely that of reporters and reviewers who seem little more than drones for the entertainment industry and similar interests--but neglects to point out how easy it is to find honest sources of information out there, particularly in electronic form.
Every industry has their puppet journalists, whether it's politics or cars or real estate. Why should video games be any different. And duh - is this guy reporting yesterdays news or what? It's not like we didn't know this. -d
I find that one or two sentences on a game from Tycho is more informative than 300 words from any gaming magazine. Penny Arcade is a far more reliable source of game info than most magazines, and they too have good access to many games before release. They also criticised the single-player version of Halo 2.
If a consistently honest and reliable gaming mag actually showed up I'm sure people would buy it. As things stand, they are just enthusiastic regurgitators of whatever the marketing people let them see that month. When was the last time a computer games mag had something other than a preview as its front cover? You know they are just passing on the marketing spiel when that happens, and it happens every month, with every mag.
What we as gamers really need is a Rolling Stone for the computer games market. I?d buy that.
Trade pubs definitely are little more than trash. There may be one column that details circuit debugging, or another featuring programming pearls but it doesn't offset the the damage the ADVER ARTICLES DO.
Last Year I ran a quarter page adv in my industries trade publication. Before I was off the phone with their sales rep. they had asked if I wanted to run articles with the adv.
Now the articles can't be adverts for my product in and of themselves, so the trick becomes writing an article that seems informative but in actually is designed to steer people towards my product. Its easy enough to do, I suspect the article you mentioned about dealing with the cold was one of them.
Trade publications are little more than advertising circulars. The articles are little more than subtle and very dangerous forms of advertising. There is another very germane example which is financial reporting. This type of journalism breaks donw into a couple of distinct grades. Newspaper/cheap financial magazines, this is usually done by people with very little knowledge of whats going and even less of what it means, so they subsitute their biases for analysis. Good example, New York times march of 04, headline Bonds Down on Jobs News. The jobs news was that 350,000 new jobs had been created and there was a good chance we were coming out of the recession.
The next level is financial research put out by brokerage firms. This information compares well with trade publications, in that it is dangerous and disguised as something meant to help you. The surest proof of this is the fact that a brokerage firms analysts are divided into 2 camps, the buy side and the sell side. The buy side write reports for use by the firm to decide what the firm should buy, the sell side writes reports to advise the customer.
The last level is paid newsletters. These are in general expensive carry no advertising and count entirely on their subscribers.
I used to write for Warcry/Crossroads gaming network. If a game I reviewed sucked I would say it sucked. I'd even tell the publisher what was wrong with it. The problem nowdays, is that companies like IGN, Stratics, and any number of magazines; make thier money off these good reviews. Game publishers have retaliated against bad press buy not letting them test anything again. I even see this in Warcry nowdays when I stop by and cruise articles. They claim to still supposedly be one of the "Volunteer" websites.
I think bloggers will be the next big thing in game journalism. I have plans on writing reviews of the games I have bought and played on my blog. While it may not be pre-release reviews of games it will be anything from first run to bargin bin games from Gamestop. Either way look to bloggers to give perspective that you will be hard pressed to find on any normal gaming website.
I've been playing Killer 7 the past few days. Even though many publications gave it horrible reviews, it is by far the most artful game I've ever seen on a platform (yes, more so than Katamari Damacy, more so than Metal Gear Solid, more so than anything you can think of). It is (not has -- is) absolutely brilliant artwork. The problem with reviewers nowadays is that they are IDIOTIC TOOLS, and not much else.
That said, if you have a Gamecube, go pick up Killer 7 immediately.
Please perform the following steps to achieve a good impression of a game before purchase. Note that, by suggesting the following steps, I do not advocate piracy nor do I do this personally. At least, not any more -_-;; Simply do the following in order to review a game that seems interesting:
1) Start download of a full version game over the web. Demos are like movie trailers. Full of the best stuff
2) Since it usually takes a while to download, during this time, look at online forums, ask friends about the game. If the game seems like crap, stop the download.
3) Play the game. If it seems crap, trash the DVD or lend it to a friend that wants to try the game out. Make sure they buy the game if they like it. Better yet, buy it for them as a present or something.
4) If the game is good, buy it.
Replace downloading with renting if the game is available and skip to step 3. I tend to play Japanese games nowadays as they aren't all cookie cutter versions of classic games. Well, some of them aren't.
If I can do it, its probably not worth doing... probably
Halo 2 "Brilliant" - IGN "Superb" - Gamespy "Amazing" - Gamespot thats enough for me to go out and buy it :))
When Master of Orion III came out in 2003, it was widely acknowledged as a horrible, horrible game. At least, among anyone who played it. But reading _some_ of the review sites, you wouldn't have known it. I mean, this awful game was given outright glowing ratings so much that you had to wonder if it was sarcasm. Take this sample of the review of just the sound from the game, where they cover one of the more annoying, short, and repetitive aspects: the dialog with aliens...
...I wish I could say it WAS sarcasm, but it struck me as something different. I am by no means a big game player. I might go out and purchase one or two games a year. But the best I could figure was that these guys were being sported free copies (and probably advance copies), and didn't want the gravy train to stop, so they keep on giving glowing reviews.
The sound is good to excellent, making full use of your speakers' dynamic range. I always turn up the speakers when I've gotten a diplomatic message to hear the wonderful alien voices. The music is stellar, haunting, stirring and intriguing by turns. I never had the urge to turn it off and still find it compelling.
Summary: 4.3/5 *Note: 2.5 is average
IN SHORT: I rate the integrity of any game review site on the inverse of the rating that they gave Master of Orion III.
Halo 2 was a more or less uninspired FPS. It changed somewhat from Halo:Combat Evolved, and I applaud that. However, the changes were, for the most part, not so good.
The ability to dual wield was a good change, for the most part. It was logically done, making sure nobody was trying to dual wield a rocket launcher and sniper rifle or crazy stuff like that. On the other hand, the 37th time you get hit with the "noob combo" you'll start to wonder just how well they did implemented this.
Eliminating fall damage: Good for new or inexperienced players, not so good for game quality, especially in multiplayer. It does a lot to eliminate some skill from the game.
Auto-aim: Same as the previous point.
Overpowered weaponry: The sword? Auto-lock for the rockets? And the "noob combo"? There are some serious issues here.
The single-player campaign: Definitely not nearly as good as Halo 1, though the story is pretty good.
I could go on longer, but I honestly don't feel like it.
Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
Most of the comments here talk about horrible reviews, but is reviewing really journalism? Is Roger Ebert a journalist? Not to degrade reviewers. But do people really 100% trust one videogame review?
While I like reading reviews, I read videogame reviews the same way I read film reviews: with a grain of salt.
Maybe it is because of my research interests, but I'm a lot more interested in the non-review journalism such as articles that talk about trends in gaming or gaming culture. That is more of what I think of when I think about journalism instead of reviews.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Then, of course, each hardware review consists of ten paragraph-length "pages" through which you must click, with the copy in a narrow column in the middle surrounded by ads.
I'm tempted to provide some links, but that would be too mean.
Developers know if their game sucks, the argument that the journalist could help them improve it is dumb. They're not gonna let anyone see an early build if it's getting trashed. I don't think we'd really get any previews if they turned into reviews, so I'd rather an early look than nothing. The bashing on reviews is pretty pointless. What's so bad about being formulaic? They tell you what's good and they tell you what's bad. I believe that's the point of the review.
While the article it self was an interesting read, you've got to be kidding me if you believe everything you read, see, hear (if its on TV it must be true!). If you have any intelligence to you at all you have already seen previews (and to a lesser extent, I think, reviews) for what they are. Seriously, have other people never noticed this before. I've seen it tons of times. A writer playing an early build of game and writing an amazing preview of it and then the same writer hates the game when it comes out. In my mind this is no different from any other type of journalism. I personally take it all with a grain of salt and just try to pick out the facts. So this article is really not very revolutionary to me. People need to practice a bit of self responsibility when partaking of the media. Even the most biased coverage of a game can still have some information to gleam from it. I like most of the video game media because at least they expose me to games, since I can't afford to buy and try out every single game that sounds fun. If you read multiple reviews and use a bit of discernment its easy to find out what is really going on with a game. We can't always have the truth spoon fed to us.
I use metacritic to read reviews of every game I buy or acquire. It is basically a bunch of quotes and a rating number from various reviews. The SAME game can get scores from 50, all the way up to 100... you can tell who got paid off for what, and who just had an axe to grind.
I find that reading a couple of their quotes, in each ranking (low=red, medium=yellow, high=green> will give me a quick rundown of the game.
There are users comments at the end to which can be helpful as well... unfortunately a lot of them tend to be fanboy-type.
http://www.metacritic.com/games/
If I can't smoke and swear I'm fucked.
Sure you can, the folks at Motorcycle Consumer News do it all the time. They get a bike for a couple of days and then write a 2-3 page very in-depth review of all aspects of the bike with viewpoints of several staff members. They even have a nice structured stats breakdown, not regurgitating the manufacturers info, but what the bike actually did when they had it.
"Motorcycle Consumer News is wholly supported by our readers, who expect us to be unswayed by industry influences on reporting." They just charge more per issue for a nicely done black and white non-glossy magazine thats been around for many years. Every month they go into great detail on what rocks and what sucks about everything from sport bikes to cruisers, including gear. They have no problem telling it like it is and frequently burn various products in an evenhanded manner. Now they're online too, google for it.
as has been suggested elsewhere in this thread, user reviews are more numerous, and you can generally pick out the ones that display critical thinking.
if the critics are (as i tend to believe) overwhelmingly hacks and shills for the gaming industry, then looking at an average of a bunch of critics scores does nothing but give you an indication of exactly what level the hype machine is at, not the true worth of a game.
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.
I quit paying attention to what the media outlets had to say about a given game a long time ago. If they want me to shell out my hard earned dollars for a new game, here's my drill:
1) There had better be a demo
2) It had better work on my hardware
3) I had better like the demo
Short of that, the game makers can get stuffed. They bought the reviewers off ages ago and every gamer knows it. We don't listen to the hype when we're picking a new game. We either go with a series we know and trust, or we hear via word of mouth from people we know personally that "X" is good or not. The inverse is equally true, if we hear that "X" is bad, we avoid it like the plague.
The resale value of games on Ebay is a better indicator of their relative "goodness".
Prime example is a game called "Sacred". It sells for $4 on ebay used. To give you a relative perspecive, a used copy of Diablo brings in $10.
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
Based on your reasoning above, we should all assume everyone is lying about everything. So in effect what you said above is a lie. Because you say that I should not believe what you say, unless I have a good reason to think what you say is true. I don't have a good reason to think that you say the truth. Which means that we should all assume that everyone is not lying. Which will mean that you're not lying about what you said above. But then...
GAH! Forget it! My brain hurts.
I have not seen or even played Halo2; however, I find it very hard to believe that it could possibly deserve less than a C (mid 7's) for its gameplay. If that were so, it would not have sold a single copy after the first week. You're kidding right? Go look up Enter the Matrix. An absolute trash title that sold millions on name and hype alone. A game doesn't have to be quality if the hype machine is big enough. Halo 2 one upped Enter the Matrix in that regard by buying out all the reviews too.
...for example, The Games Machine in Italy's great, full of dedicated people who know what they're talking about and have no fear in bashing a crappy game if needed. See their site (in Italian).
I would contest that it is at preview time where the press can make the most positive contribution to an otherwise poor game - with constructive criticism, and not, mind, the opposite of the sugar coating we see now and simple-minded trashing of seemingly poor games, the press can affect the thinking of developers so that the final product will be much better received than it would be with great previews and then trashy reviews, which takes away from the standing of the publication as well as sinking many the game.
What you might want to consider doing - if you want to maintain the flow of your reading, although this is laregely subjective and one might argue that personal preference, however daft-seeming, is the only determining force needed, is separate your thoughs with periods instead of commas, and move on, and not elongate 4 sentences worth of text into one desultory screed.
it is lose you fucking idiot
By being so unwilling to bend to the pressure from marketing departments, they've become the only magazine of any importance to those actually in development.
"I thought they are full of fanboys who bash all dissenting opinions to death?"
Yep, that sums up the last gamer board I went to.
I go to the techincal section of the ubisoft far cry messageboard the other day and complain about a few things...
1) The game does not run properly as a limitied user. This is 2006 and we've had a muli-user windows for 10 years. Programs should not require admin in Windows anymore.
2) It crashes to the desktop while loading maps and sometimes during gameplay - this is my major problem.
The members immediately start attacking me..
Far Cry fanbois: "WTF? Why are you trying to run the game as a limited user?!!! You have to run the game as admin because Windows' faulty design makes you!"
Me: "What the heck are you talking about? No you don't, and no it doesn't."
Far Cry fanbois: "Yes it does. Try running a Windows domain for a living some time and you'll see"
Me: Actually, I do run a Windows domain for a living. 1000 Windows computers and no one has admin rights to their local machine.
Far Cry fanbois:You have to run the game as an admin user. This is unsupported and is what is causing your problems.
Me:Nowhere on the far cry support site or the docs does it say anything anoput running as admin. Anyway, I fixed the issues cause by running as non admin and it works now with my limited account. My problem now is the random crashes.
Far Cry fanbois:(quickly changing the subject) Your card is unsupported. You should turn your graphics settings down to "low".
Me: Actually my card is supported. Otherwise my model wouldn't be listed on the UBISoft website under the *recommended* hardware section. "low" craphics settings look like ass, and I'm getting good framerates. I'm not going to turn my settings down.
Far Cry fanbois: But it says "DirectX 9.0b compatible card". Your card only supports DirectX8 at the hardware level, therefore it is unsupported.
Me: DirectX 9.0 compatible doesn't mean the card supports every directx9 feature on the hardware. For the last time, my card is supported.
Far Cry fanbois: But I used to run that old ass card of yours and the game crashed all the time when I did. After I bought my [insert insanely expensive video card here] the game has never crashed. You need to turn your settings down.
Me:I am getting 30-45FPS with my current settings. If I turn it down, it looks like ass. I'm not going to turn it down. The game should not crash just becuase I'm fuilly utilizing my hardware.
Far Cry fanbois: You have to turn your settings down. DirectX has to emulate features your graphics card doesn't support, and that's why it is crashing.
Me: That's bullshit. Emulating a couple of features in software should not cause the program to crash. The game is crashing because it is buggy. Is there any extra logging I can turn on so I can maybe get a usefull error message?
Far Cry fanbois: You can do extra logging by typing blah blah in the console...but I'm telling you, you have to turn your settings down because your card is unsupported.
Me: Fuck you all and goodbye.
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
As they once said on nickelodeon, "you've tried virtual reality, now try ACTUAL reality"
put down your joysticks and get a life. yes yes its a multibillion $ industry, so is crack cocaine, and both contribute equally in a positive way to the human condition . . .
Ask Me About... The 80's!
Indeed, some do write honest reviews. Reminds me of Computer Gaming World's review of Postal 2. Absolutely priceless:
We caught a lot of flak a few years ago for using a naughty word in a preview for Majestic, and we pretty much resolved against using it again. Until we got Postal 2. So turn away if you're under 18 or weak of heart, because the only honest response we can make is this: Copulate this game.
You might argue that such a profane reaction debases us, that by saying this we only sink to Postal 2's level, and to that I can only say that this herpetic accretion of digitized hate and social retardation would have the pope swearing like the most guttermouthed drunken Tourette's sufferer. It's a relentlessly idiotic, ill-conceived, hateful, humorless romp through an infected colon.
All you really need to know about Postal 2 is "Fag Hunter." That's the title of an arcade game in the Running With Scissors offices in the game, and it pretty much sums up what passes for humor in Postal 2. RWS has turned decrying political correctness into a personal crusade, but this is simply offensive by even the most primitive metric. Everything in this product is shot through with the pathetic mewling and puking of self-pitying crybaby dilettantes so consumed with pointing out how they're being crucified they fail to notice that they're the half-wits pounding the nails in. Antiviolence protesters storm the RWS offices! Oh, boo-hoo-hoo.
In a weird way, your heart almost breaks from the concerted, energetic, woefully misdirected attempts at "edgy" humor limping throughout this dispiriting exercise in godawfulness--it's just so overwhelmingly pathetic. From the screaming Osama Arabs to the cat-and-dog-munching Asians to the lighthearted japes about Waco, everything in this shooter is pulled from the "Look I made a doody!" school of humor--only less subtle. References, politically incorrect and otherwise, are constantly made yet never put into any sort of context and therefore are about as effective and funny as a sock full of liver. Postal 2 has hanging chad jokes for crying out loud; even Jay Leno stopped making those a year ago.
But just in case you're the kind of person who's pissing on yourself with excitement at this idiocy, there are plenty of other reasons to avoid Postal 2. Excruciatingly long load times in excess of a full minute, often within moments of each other, make wandering through the graphically mediocre sprawl of the town a case study of stupidity. The alleged location-based damage model is a lie, as it takes repeated shotgun blasts at point-blank range to drop an unarmored foe. The game is built around five fun-filled days of running errands that feature real-time waiting in line and devolve into the same "some wacky politically untouchable or oversensitive group storms the building" style of mayhem. You have to escape a burning building at least twice. The voice acting sucks, the framerate drops when things get hectic, the interiors are little more than boxes with an occasional desk inside, and more.
Until someone boxes up syphilis and tries to sell it at retail, Postal 2 is the worst product ever foisted upon consumers.
VERDICT: No.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
I wrote for the Adrenaline vault during the summer of 2002. I ended up leaving over a disagreement about the editor changing what I'd submitted and then posting it without informing me, but it was a pretty straightforward disagreement and his prerogative to do as he wished with his site.
One thing they never did was tell me or hint that reviews should be weighted. I got a free copy of the game and usually a week or so to review it. Provided I backed up my arguments, I don't think they ever cared what I said with regard to the final rating of a game. In the short time I was there, I never got my hands on anything I would have trashed, so I don't know if it would have been harder to write a really horrible review. But whatever my disagreements with them at the time, they certainly valued journalistic integrity.
Previews were probably a different matter, but I don't see how else to cover previews. You (probably) don't get to play the game. You get to look at pictures and possibly a short video and to read about the game. How are the gaming mags supposed to cover this? It's entirely possible for a game to be great in a preview (take MOO3 6-8 months before release) and then fall apart between then and when it hits the shelves.
In other words, if you're so hot and bothered about the quality of game reviews, why don't you write your own?
Aquitaine
Lead Designer, FreeOrion
If they have interest in it... he is generally right. Nowadays survival tactic is: show them a fake image of yourself how damn good you are. Especially true at applying for jobs. Or at court. Though you could do something new. When applying for a job, simply tell them the truth _and_ make sure they get your point of not making up something fake'n'shiny.
Yeah, I know, "but Daddyyy, everyone is lyyyiing!!" - that's no excuse.
pricks of conscience?
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
All _good_ sequels (movies, games, whatever) share a common axiom: make it exactly the same, but completely different. Aliens. Half-Life 2. Doom II. Spider-Man 2. Godfather, Part II. Tony Hawk Whatever. When a consumer wants a "sequel", they don't want something exactly the same, but they don't want something wildly different either. Success is acheived in finding this balance. As an experienced gamer (I worked for GameSpy, running 3DActionPlanet, for three years), I can say that Halo 2, while certainly a good game, was far from a _GREAT_ game. The grand-parent poster is right: same shit, different pile. I'm glad that they solved the "every interior base is exactly the same" problem, but the story was iffy, the voice acting so-so, and the gameplay EXCEEDINGLY linear. (I understand that open-ended gameplay is hard to acomplish, but come on... at least TRY to conceal it.) You want a decent FPS? Forget this console junk and buy a computer. Use a mouse and keyboard. Play Half-Life & Half-Life 2. Once you have some more gaming experience, Halo 2's problems will become that much more apparent.
Go read Edge - its about the only piece of videogames journalism i've ound worth bothering with. Check it out at edge-online.co.uk, if you live in the UK go find it in your local WHSmith and I believe its available in the states too. And no, I don't work for the magazine :P
"Everlasting peace will come to Earth when the last man kills the last but one." - Adolf Hitler
This problem is endemic in the media, period. Some are worse than others - I don't have any experience with motorcycle magazines, but I know the automotive press is just terrible. I went looking through some of those magazines a while back when I was looking to buy a car, and I was amazed that I couldn't find a single bad review. Instead the articles were overloaded with emotional terminology similar to a car commercial. Driving this car was an adventure. I had a sense of freedom when I drove that car. It's atrocious and renders the publications absolutely useless.
I think that this is one area in which blogs really shine - if I want some honest reviews of a game or a car, I can go fire up technorati and pretty quickly get an idea of what the buzz is, the good and the bad associated with any given product. That's much harder to get from "professional" journalism.
Real life costs money. I work, and then I'll play games at home.
You want me to fly to Paris? Give me some money fuckface.
Meet my friend. His name is Question Mark. He looks like this. ---->?---- When asking a question, be it rhetorical or not, he can usually be found at the end of it.
Perhaps you're not familiar with the American culture that forces ratings to be skewed toward the upper extremes. In the US, students are given letter grades that correspond to percentages. If your average score is 90%, you get an A (or A-, depending on the scale). 80% is a B, 70% is a C (* some use 65%), and anything less than that is considered a failure.
Wow, it has become even easier to get a "C" than when I was in school (70's and 80's in USA). Back then A was 93-100%, B was 86-92%, C was 78 to 85%, D was 70-77%, and anything below 70% was an F... Not that this changes the rest of your argument for game rankings, but it used to be a lot more difficult to get an acceptable (not just "passing" grade)!
Urge to post... fading... fading... RISING!... fading... fading... gone.
Journalism overall isnt living its best days certainly.. But the videogaming press sucks almost as much as anything dedicated to similar "hobbies". If some Brits here could recall the Digitiser versus Sega Magazine clash over Sonic the Hedgehog 3 review. Digitiser awarded Sonic 3 an average score of 70%, and fans everywhere backlashed with anger at the teletext-based magazine for the unfavourable review. I was only 12 at the time but I was sincerely disappointed by Sonic 3, yet remained a big fan. The point is most reviewers were always biased, and many people have expected them to suddenly grow up with the advent of the web and huge multi-platform publications and start writing mature and informative journalism. Didn't happen, probably wont for more years to come. Of course there are exceptions; Edge magazine to a certain extent for example, flight sim reviewers too, abd even some "indie" European websites/publications who moderately regard the rabid fans and lean towards professional integrity instead. The aforementioned confession by a Gamers Europe staff member detailing the critical Halo 2 debacle, I recommend you read it for further insight!
I love it.
An anonymous coward thinks I'm a fucking idiot apparently because a simple spelling mistake prevented his feeble mind from understanding the point of my post.
Oh wait, nevermind, its just the high and mighty Caspian, Master of English.
Personally If I were him, I'd go see a doctor. I hear there are treatments available today for Tourette's and Obsessive Compulsive disorder.
Getting hung up on tiny details and loosing the point of the overall story is a common symptom suffered by those who are unfortunate enough to be stricken by these diseases.
Caspian, there is hope for you. Be strong!
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
- First Class(A): 70%+
- Upper Second Class (B+): 60-70%
- Lower Second Class (B-): 50-60%
- Third Class (C): 40-50%
- Condoned Failure (D?): 35-40%
This doesn't mean it's as easy to get an A here as it is to pass in an American school. Grades usually fit a bell curve which peaks at around 55%. Putting the pass grade up at 70% seems somewhat silly, since it means that there is very little scope for individuals to distinguish themselves. With our system, the questions can be of roughly equivalent difficulty, and the top students must do at least twice as well as those that just scrape by.I've strayed widely off-topic here, but my point is that just because the grade threshold is lower doesn't mean getting the grade is easier - if the questions are harder then it can mean the same thing.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Written content consisted of 75% "Previews" (promotional fluff pieces on upcoming games) and 25% "Reviews" (the only honest part of the mag, consisting of reviews of games that they had been gushing over in previews just months before--published way too late to stop anyone from buying them, of course). It was so pathetically transparent as to be laughable.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
...there is no way in hell RE4 deserved 2nd best game of all time.
They are, as far as I can tell, the exception to the bad motojournalism rule. I love MCN and recommend it.
Highbury publishing, the only independant games magazine publisher in the UK is going bust, the CEO has left and they're som 30 Million in Debt. Say hello to the Future publishing Monoculture. http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?ss sdmh=dm4.160958&story=7491
Bastards!
Game Demos.
This solves everything really. But I don't really agree with the premise of the article. Yeah, maybe some mags and sites are full of crap, but who cares? Some I might read for their writing style, some might have the first screenshots or movies. Some might have the best comments on the articles themselves. Some might have site features you like, e.g. gamespot's 'add to my games' sort of thing.
Ok, two more words:
Penny Arcade.
They have no compunction about exposing bullshit for what it is.