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.
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?
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
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 reading gaming magazines for nearly 20 years now and can confidently say that they have been very informative overall. Unlike most websites which regurgitate press releases, magazine editors build relationships with game developers and are invited to visit their offices to get their hands on alpha builds or deathmatches with the team. They then go back to the office where they put their professional writing skills and industry experience to proper use.
Games journalism is unquestionably real journalism. It covers news about an industry I care about, and it acts as consumer reviews of expensive products that I will buy or avoid based on their comments.
Plus it's something to read on the can.
magazine editors build relationships with game developers
I'd rather read the thoughts of someone who developed a relationship with the game, not the developer. Of course, that takes time but that's ok with me. Just like any other media, our understanding of its quality matures as time goes by.
Plus it's something to read on the can.
Reading on the toilet increases your risk of hemorrhoids. Just do your business and leave.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!