Slashdot Mirror
Rest In Print, Gaming Journalism
Phaethon360 writes "The film industry, the music industry and the gaming industry — three factions of entertainment in the grasp of a vicious and unbridled tyrant. The internet is a toddler with a handgun, and its whims shall be met — and with great abandon. It can be a source of great wealth or utter failure. But what's striking is the fact that no one seems to be taking the necessary precautions to ensure a smooth and prosperous transition. I'm talking, of course, about doing away with the middle man; the gaming magazine."
Dan Amrich, former editor of OXM, recently argued the other side of this issue, saying that game-related print media doesn't get the respect it deserves for breaking stories earlier than online media, and for not just waiting "until the information came to them, in the form of a PR release and a video." A related piece at GameSetWatch suggests that the print media is doing a decent job of undercutting itself through unsustainably-low subscription fees.
I'm unfamiliar with OXM, but if they were of average quality, then that's not saying much at all, and usually online sources were superior at that time.
(Of course, they kept sending these which were unsolicited for a year, then sent a bill. After being told they'd sent it to us unsolicited mail sent to us through the US Postal Service and to shove off, they did, suggesting that they employed that tactic on others. So they were probably higher on the slimey scale than most.)
First post?
:)
Joking
Anywho, i think gaming magazines serve an important purpose. They help provide information to new markets(and coverdisc's loaded with videos and demos).
While slashdot has a lot of very relevant game news, it can't compare to NAG(new age gaming) for volume of stories/reviews/ journalism(and lack of idiots aiming for first-post:)
Though using opera mini to check a review of a game instore has its bonuses too
Gaming journalism has long been dead by any traditional standard of "journalism". I worked in games nearly ten years ago, and even then, reviews were easily influenced by ad revenue, "exclusive" deals and such. Some magazines put on a show claiming they weren't like the others, but everyone knew that was a scam.
The game I worked on became "game of the month" in Germany's largest gaming magazine solely because we threw in a pile of merchandise they could use for a raffle. We didn't come up with the idea, the magazine did.
With this kind of conduct increasingly apparent even ten years ago, the only thing that surprises me about this is how this sham has been shambling on. But there are enough other branches of worthless journalism (i.e. men's and women's magazines which recycle the bulk of their material every two years), so go figure.
blow your mind already
There is nothing in game magazines that can't be done better by any joe schmoe on a forum or game blog.
I miss the days of the old Next Generation, when they actually scored some interesting interviews and had some solid business information in there. It's the only game magazine I ever subscribed to. I'll buy a game magazine if it ever manages to get serious about what it puts out. Otherwise, I'll stick with the source that's not only free, but never worse than the print edition.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I stopped reading gaming mags/sites years ago, too many puff-pieces for vapourware, or people telling me I'd be sooo much more competitive if I just spent loadsamoney on their hardware. Instead; I tried asking real people what games they played, how well it played, and if online play was fun or just a button-twitch fest.
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
I stopped reading the print magazines years ago because they seemed to be nothing more than fan rags. Where were the "this game is an unstable, buggy, boring turd" for all of the games that really were or "those of you with high-enough spec' systems may get this game to run, but the rest of you should wait for it to hit the bargain bins, because, by then, you may have 'leet' enough systems to run it"?
How often was there a "BTW, the copy protection in this game means that when their server is down, you CANNOT play it!"?
At least G4 gave a 1 sometimes.
Funny that,
having picked up an Xbox 360 at the weekend, now they're not supposed to crash or die much, I got an Official Xbox Mag (UK) just to see what was what...
Apart from being thinner than a steamrollered snake, it seemed to have lost interest and heart in the subject matter. Most of the writers seem to be the same old faces from way back, so perhaps gaming mags need to cull their staff and hire the keen young web-types to inject some enthusiasm.
But, overall - I didn't find anything new in the mag that I couldn't read online, so (despite their claims for exclusives) mags seem to have no purpose.
Caveat - it is summer so there's less newsy stuff about
If he's the Walrus then can I be a penguin please?
I used to read PC Gamer until I got sick of it getting thinner and thinner, while the price went up and up and the amount of crap on the coverdisc multiplied. Now I read GamesTM (UK mag) and it's pretty good- it feels like it's written for adults, which is bloody refreshing in a games mag.
(No, I don't work for them, just pointing out that it's not all as bad as PC Gamer!)
I've tried a lot of magazines over the years and CGW\GFW was the only one I ever liked.
And accurate or not, I'm not sure we should be thrilled to see the most pompous and tenuous form of new media preaching to the converted on the death of the old media.
It all seems like everyone jumped the shark shortly after PC Gamer's Coconut Monkey became an interactive video on the attached CD-ROM.
Some of the demos were okay, but most were blindingly atrocious, with more and more of the disc being taken up by Coconut Monkey easter eggs and such. That was around 1996?
Computer Gaming World, and most other magazines equally rapidly became less and less about information, and increasingly about the tepid sales pitch and promo tie-ins.
But, someone might as well call time of death on the notion of print media covering games, particularly PC games.
People want to actually get their hands on games. Gamers are getting more jaded with release after release of blatant shovelware, most of which needed at least another year of fully funded development (cough, EA, cough).
Almost everyone knows by now, most of the trailers, screenshots, and even occasionally demos (although demos are RARE nowadays) are all carefully staged to make something look awesome, but in the end, it's a 1/10 POS.
Despite making profits that make non-casual gamers turn mauve in disgust, game companies are having trouble selling the flaming piles they have almost-exclusively in recent years. If nobody produces truly good, inspiringly made games, nobody's going to want to read about it, either. That's kinda like adding Director's Commentary to Tom Arnold comedies. Nobody wants to listen to commentary about something that's akin to self-harm.
Print magazines have been on the decline for a long time, but it's been the canary in the coalmine as far as quality vs. quantity in the gaming industry goes. Now you've got a dead canary, and the miners can't be arsed to fix any gas leaks before they all suffocate.
"A Goddess rarely smiles for she is forced by others to be an island unto herself." - Zephiris
Video game magazines have always been rubbish, at least until the internet came out, especially with broadband. Biased reviews in favor of anticipated big hits (review our game bad and we'll just see who gets preview copies of this game we're working on next time!), terrible, corny humor and transparent attempts to be "edgy" corny than anything else, useless information, outdated information (since almost all gaming magazines came out monthly), useless strategy guides since they had obviously limited space and a variety of games to cover. Many pages going over a game you'll never give a crap about on a system you don't even own. Cheat codes have increasingly become less about punching in the right button sequences and now tend to be earned bonuses. Any game help is more quickly found online, and instead of taking the word of one or a few people that write for the magazine you can see how much people in general tend to rate the game on websites. Combine that with the fact that an important part of gaming is actual in-game action and magazines can only provide still photos (unless they come with a bonus DVD) there's really no reason at all to waste time with a gaming magazine. Oh, and the fact that every other page in a gaming magazine was an advertisement? Yeah.
I'm sure most of the stories broken earlier in video game magazines is usually just due to promised exclusive deals with the magazines and that without the magazines the information would have been released through some other channel (hey, instead of you announcing that game publicly let us break the news first...). How much of "gaming journalism" is really actually journalism? Not much, I think, especially since the industry so heavily guards its secrets.
Something to the effect that the only thing lower than Music "Journalism" is Game "Journalism." It's meant more as a slam to Music "Journalism," as there would inevitably be some guy in the whom citing some music review or other as if it mattered. There was never anyone who took game reviews seriously. In a general interest publication, the game reviews is the job given to the editor-in-chief's nephew, chasing his first byline.
Not all magazines are like that. The magazine (the Belgian PC-Gameplay) I'm reading only has about 4 pages of ads while the rest is filled with articles. Neither has there been any blames of being sell-outs.
Maybe it's just me, but I can't help thinking that's an excellent premise for a game...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
All the other things aside - I agree with them - the #1 reason for a Gaming Review magazine is... the reviews, right?
Well, that's where they truly, 10 on a 1-10 scale, suck. I've yet had to see a game that was advertised for that would score less than 70%. In fact, I would usually subtract 60% and divide by 4 to see how the game would rate on a 1-10 score in a more realistic way.
Combine that with enthousiastic "previews" of games in production where the lads of the redaction had a good time with the programmers (read: the review will not dip below 90%) that where always 6 month ahead of when the game had the vaguest chance of appearing and one wonders how they managed to last so long.
Good riddance!
It seems to me that the main functions of magazines pre-internet - regurgitating news releases and screenshots so that obsessives know what's going on - can be very easily and cheaply accomplished by any hack on the web. Given that, any magazine which sells itself on the back of raw news is utterly screwed. However what kept me reading games magazines as an adult was the editorial and other novel content. Lengthy discussions of game design tropes, how games are written, game history and so on, are mentally stimulating and lead to some fun conversations. To be honest, that kind of material is inevitable and essential if there are to be adult videogame players. It's those sorts of magazines that will survive, I think. Edge seems to have the right idea - its news coverage is increasingly focussed on discussing the news with games industry figures rather than simply reporting it, as though aware that it's been thoroughly scooped by the time it goes to press. Its reviews are increasingly starkly editorialised now that people can bypass nominally objective reviews in mags for mechanistically objective review aggregations.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I think I got stung by the cancellation of like 3 gaming mags, each worst than the last, when I actually tried to subscribe to one. So I gave up for awhile.
Then, after the third month in a row, buying this "Edge" magazine deal from the UK for like $18.95 at Chapters, I finally pulled the trigger and subscribed. (expensive still but a lot cheaper than chapters)
Worth a shot if you're on this side of the pond and looking for something to read on the crapper!
Edge is the best gaming magazine I've read in years, it reminds me of the old Next Gen, but is probably better than that. You get previews where they, GASP, actually dare to say a game looks like it's probably going to suck. The reviews are well done, and they seem to use the full 1-10 scale. Plus you get long interesting articles on a variety of game industry stuff; retrospectives of older games, in depth looks at various game houses etc.
And it's actually more than a 10 page flyer! And not stuffed with ads.
It's just so expensive (like $80-$90 per year in Canada), but on the other hand it's pretty much the only mag I buy.
Let's face it, why did we read game mags. To see what new games hit the market? Ok, true, to some degree. But be blunt and honest here, we wanted to know how to spend those 50 or 100 bucks we had per month. What games are worth our dough? If you can only buy one or maybe two games a month, you have to make a selection. Back in the days, often getting a "trial" wasn't easy (no internet, you whippersnappers!), if you got one it was, you guessed it, bundled on a CD with a game mag. And even then, what does a preview show you? That yes, it has spiffy graphics and that you don't go nuts immediately at the crappy interface, but what trial gave you more than 3-4 hours of gameplay? And pretty much any game is fun after just 3-4 hours. Even Spore was.
So we relied on experienced, hardcore gamers to sift through the pits of rubbish to unearth the gem or two that this month held in stores for us. The one or two gems a month that we would spend our pittance... I mean, allowance on.
And what did we get, more and more often as time went on? Overhyped crap, that had flashy graphics, no doubt here, but games that looked great... on paper. Choppy animations, horrible bugs (and try to get patches, still no internet you young'uns!) and a general feeling of being ... fuck, you've been ripped off! By the company that released this cheesy, half-baked excuse of a game, but also by the game mag that gave this turd stellar reviews. What the (censored to protect the squeamish)???
Later, when I went into writing, I learned that the whole biz is a lot of "scratch my back, scratch your back". You gimme good reviews, I give you exclusive material. You gimme sneak previews, I don't talk about the glaring bugs. You gimme free samples, I give you a review that doesn't make your material look like the pile of turd that it is. I'll even photoshop your graphics a little...
That's also why you can't find any "bad" reviews anymore. When was the last time you saw a game getting a score of 50 or lower (on a, theoretical, 0-100 scale)? A 60 already means "reeks like my old running shoes". Back in the days, before it got turned in the complete joke it is today (read: When you could at least assume that there were non-payola reviews), a review of 90+ meant that this is gold, an epic piece, a milestone that will be the measuring stick for the next decade. A 80+ was a good game, worth the dough. 60+ was still good, if it was your genre you could still get that. A 40+ at least meant that it would be ok if it was in the bargain bin and you had those odd 10 bucks to throw at something. Around 20, you found really stinkers, often included for kicks or to find the "lemon of the month".
Today, 90+ is the standard for A material games. No top level studio title will ever get anything but a 90+ rating unless it's really bincrap. 80+ is fairly good, 70+ could possibly be considered if you're a fan and stay the hell away from anything getting a rating with a 6 as the first digit. No, I'm not talking about reviews below the 60s. It's moot. The simply DO NOT exist.
And here's where the internet comes in. The internet is brutal. Unforgiving. People who do not get paid and thus have no interest at all to pull punches. They will shower you with praise if you should get it, but they will cover you in rubbish if you deserve it, too. Of course, you're dealing with another form of payola today: Paid reviews that push the "review meter" this way or the other.
Still, it's much harder to silence (or pay) a few thousand voices than to nudge a single one in the "right" direction. And that's why online review pages take over. Credibility. As odd as it may sound, but yes, a few thousand anonymous amateurs are more credible and reliable than a single expert. At least when it comes to opinions and taste.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I've been part of the 'gaming media' for nearly 20 years now, writing game reviews occasionally for print magazines, but mostly for websites.
My take is that gaming magazines miss their target completely.
Firstly, gaming magazines are nothing more than previews, reviews, and columns. When's the last time you opened a gaming magazine and actually saw a STORY about UI developments, the moral stance in violent videogames, or something that wasn't a poorly-camouflaged (if they bother) extended preview of something in development? Frankly, it would not be a bad move for a gaming magazine to publish the sort of thing that is on Gamasutra, as some of those articles are in-depth, technical, and worthy of mental digestion, instead of just extended adverts?
Second, their credibility is universally shot. In the real world of journalism, there's at least some degree of credibility to the print media (although that's fading too), with formal fact-checking offices and editors that review the stories for meaning in value. Gaming mags ape the worst habits of the cheapest websites. Their review scales (1-10, stars, whatever) are meaningless, as games fall clearly into three categories: the uber-mega hit, the merely interesting, or the scapegoat category. Their scores will be (on a 1-100 scale) 97+, 89-96, or 50 or lower, respectively. Generally the whole thing is a quiet circle-jerk, where the gaming companies provide free games and buy copious advertising space, while the magazines quietly agree to make sure that the review is generally good but in any case always contains a few hyperbolic quotes that are good for box text. There are a *few* games that even the publishers regard as stinkers, and are so obviously bad, they serve as useful 'credibility' anchors, because pretty much everyone agrees to pile on and downrate it, so there's no danger of a publisher/developer getting their feelings particularly hurt. You might think that mags could buy their titles, but this would put them MONTHS behind their peers, who all get pre-release gold copies for their reviews. They are already hostage to their print schedules, distribution, etc which handicaps them in breaking any new information vs. websites.
Third, even if the reviews are genuine, the nature of reviewing is personal and very subjective. I'd suggest that most gamers browse reviewers widely, until they land on a handful that seem to mirror their own opinions closely enough. There is a quite natural advantage to websites that can be hotlinked, browsed widely, and cost nothing to sample widely (they're not really free, you as a gamer are paying a microtransaction in every game purchase to subsidize the free review games and advertising fees, but it's nearly invisible).
Fourth, in regards to pretty much any modern game aside from Dwarf Fortress, a huge selling point of any game is the graphics. Websites can simply link a screenshot, and you can see what the game will look like at full resolution (boo to the retarded game sites that display their graphics in some sort of non-capturable popup so this is impossible). That's tremendously important to most players who either want to see the pretty flashes and chrome, or have a more tangible question about whether the UI is readable, etc. Magazines are stuck with (good resolution but) usually smaller than 4x6 images, which simply can't carry the details. Websites can also carry video clips which SHOW gameplay (boo again to the websites that accept the bullshit cutscene videos which show neither actual gameplay nor game resolution).
Finally, there's the matter of space: while editorial review is a good thing (don't ever let my editors hear me say that), magazine editors are more about the chopping than the refining. A good editor helps a writer be more succinct and convey their points more clearly. Magazines like all print media have a zero-sum hard cap on the amount of space stories can take up - if a game is alloted 18 column-inches, or 750 words, or whatever, that can't be changed with
-Styopa
The usefullness of gaming mags are nowadays nonexistent. The reason is the blatant ad-based reviews. Put a couple of expensive ads in the mag and you get a stellar review of your game.
I dont want to wade through a gaming magazine and buy really crappy games to sift through muck before i find one thats playable. I want the gaming mag to describe to me what the game is all about.
The gaming mag industry killed itself just as the IT-mags are killing themselves with paid reviews and tight connections to the industry. Its all based on trust and when you cant tell an article from an ad you might as well drive around town looking at billbords than read a magazine.
HTTP/1.1 400
a good number of otherwise naive people understand that 'gaming journalism' was corporate shilling based on bribery and threats. ie, the game company would cut off access to their next pre-releasse, unless you lauded their latest festering dog poo game and lied about it. same goes for hardware companies. if you gave good reviews you got free stuff and insider access.
that is not journalism. thats advertising.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidet (as a sidenote, I consider the act of smearing the feces on your buttocks (fundamentally, that's what it is) quite disgusting)
But...a lot of trees used in industry come from, basically, plantations, so it's not so bad as you put it.
One that hath name thou can not otter
A bidet is a nice idea in theory but most of the time you just end up wet and dirty rather than just dirty.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Well, perhaps; was just pointing out that there is standardized solution to the problem.
Me...I just always try to take quick shower afterwards.
One that hath name thou can not otter
I just hate sitting in the bathroom with a laptop scorching my legs.
Magazines are just better than the internet for some situations.
TFA mentions the "blinkies" that often happened to original NES systems, with the design flaw being the spring loaded, zero insertion force cartridge mechanism. TFA also mentions the supposed "solution" which involved taking the cart out, blowing into said cart, reinserting it, and repeating until it worked. I am still amazed how this MYTH has been perpetuated, and that very few seemed to ever figure out that there is a quick, easy, nearly foolproof, and nearly 100% effective solution.
The easy way to solve this issue is to insert the cartridge without sliding it all the way back. When you press it down, you want the outer, visible edge of the cartridge to press against the ledge underneath. By so doing, it would make proper contact and work nearly every time.
Blowing into your cartridges (especially when done by children in the 1980s) was just a way to add extra saliva, mucus, and/or food particles into the mix.
When's the last time you opened a gaming magazine and actually saw a STORY about UI developments, the moral stance in violent videogames, or something that wasn't a poorly-camouflaged (if they bother) extended preview of something in development?
Last week. Because I buy EDGE magazine. The American games journalists should import it so they can see how to do their jobs properly.
It sounds like I'm the only one left who likes (at least some) gaming mags. My wife got a subscription to Game Informer with a Gamestop store card and we came to look forward to new issues. There are plenty of 2- or 3-star reviews, they criticize shiny new games, and are generally fun to read. Yeah, certain articles feel a little... sponsored... but for the most part we've been happy with it.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I'm reading through these posts and I'm glad this point is being discussed from both sides. Growing up, gaming magazines were my only source of information in video games. I wasn't capable with a computer, and the only time I used the internet was to help write a report. To me, back then, it was a boring place. I read GamePro...yes I know. It was never really a good magazine, but it was cheap and often times funny. Perfect for attracting the interest of a twelve year old gamer just looking to find out what was out. Times have changed, and I do a bit more gaming than just using my allowance to buy a few games a year. The game industry has undoubtedly grown along with me. More coverage is required for more games. We have a thriving Indie community now with downloadable games on the rise. It just makes sense that more and more things would move towards the online space. Our mobile devices our equipped with RSS readers, web browsers and podcasts. Gaming magazines are even branching out with their own sites, podcasts and web content. Everyone recognizes the shift is coming. When is the only unknown now.
Yes, you've just pointed out how problematic that "solution" is.
A bidet really does not cut down my use of paper. If anything it might increase it.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Which, really, isn't much of a problem in case of toiled paper...largely a product of recycling, ending up as biomass waste in the ground (it would end up like that in natural forest; never mind that our wood comes from forests that are far from natural)
One that hath name thou can not otter
If video game magazines didn't start copying FAQs, strategy guides, reviews, and other articles printed online, and then took claim for them when they published them in their weekly rags, they might be doing better today.
But by hiring green, unskilled writers looking for the easiest way to find material and having a hierarchy of superiors that approved of plagiarism, many publishers quickly poisoned their reputations.
Ziff-Davis Media, Future Publishing, most of Dave Halverson's post-GameFan efforts were the very worst offenders.
i would like to meet the moron who modded this flamebait.
on second thought, not. someone stupid to the extent of being that biased or lacking vision should be avoided.
Read radical news here