Previews in game mags premature? Interview with Denis Dyack in GI

[lendelin]

GI online has an interesting interview with the president of Silicon Knights, Denis Dyack. From the reasons to sue Epic games to the most interesting views about premature previews of games in magazines, he is "clearing the air."

Link: http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200709/N07.0905.1657.36513.htm?Page=1

[YoshiM]

It seems as though Mr. Dyack only wants to show SK's games "when they are ready" and when they do show the game doesn't want the games' feelings hurt when they are shown in their prepubescent stages so there "shouldn't be any criticism" with the preview. Or in other words, doesn't want negative press and the possible negative sales if the games are like hammered crap when previewed.

How can a person, even looking at a build when the developer deems it's "ready", NOT have criticism if the parts that are played aren't looking/playing/sounding right? As a gamer wanting to possibly spend my money I'd rather know a title I'm interested in has some things that need polishing or if it's not going well rather than getting a clone of past optimistic previews of titles that ended up being complete dogs (like pretty much all Superman games post VCS).

[lendelin]

It seems as though Mr. Dyack only wants to show SK's games "when they are ready" and when they do show the game doesn't want the games' feelings hurt when they are shown in their prepubescent stages so there "shouldn't be any criticism" with the preview. Or in other words, doesn't want negative press and the possible negative sales if the games are like hammered crap when previewed.

How can a person, even looking at a build when the developer deems it's "ready", NOT have criticism if the parts that are played aren't looking/playing/sounding right? As a gamer wanting to possibly spend my money I'd rather know a title I'm interested in has some things that need polishing or if it's not going well rather than getting a clone of past optimistic previews of titles that ended up being complete dogs (like pretty much all Superman games post VCS).

The more reliable way to evaluate if a game deserves your money is anyway a review, and not a potentially misleading preview of a game one year before it is published.

I think the position of Dyack is more nuanced than you give him credit.

I see your point, and I agree with it; it is, however, only a part of the problem of previews in game mags. There is a tension between interests in upcoming games, the necessity of previews, and premature evaluations by journalists who are instrumentalized by developers and publishers as marketing tools.

It is a thin line between information about upcoming games, and premature evaluations. I regard GI as the best mag around these days. Still, they make judgement calls in previews that are premature, and so do other mags. If I know that a game will be published in 12 or 18 months, why praise or condemn a title already? Sure, the criticism is only valid for the game at this stage of development, and we can assume that the reader is aware of that.

However, if game mags make judgement calls too early, a developer or publisher is more tempted, and might be even forced to get the propaganda word out about games in development as a marketing strategy; and that means the instrumentalization of mags to sell games way before release date. The highpoint of this ridiculous development was every year E3 where videos of games were shown two years before release, and playable demos of games one year before their release -- all for the sake of hype and marketing which went overboard.

I think the latter is Dyacks point. I don't expect from journalists to have no opinion about a demo sent to them, but 1) preview evaluations in mags are not careful enough (my emphasis), 2) the marketing wheels are in gear too early which shows in premature demos sent by publishers to journals. The criticism of Dyack is not one way street. The criticism goes for publishers who sent out demos for careful evaluation BEFORE the game is ready for a menaingful demo, and it goes for the journalsists who are not careful enough in their criticism in this stage of development and are therefore prone to be exploited by publishers as marketing tools.

If you read the preview sections of game mags from ten or two years ago, the discrepancy between euphemistic propaganda and reality is apparent. Preview sections have more to do with propaganda than moderate, prudent information.

More than one year before "Enter the Matrix" was released, it was already praised in mags as "revolutionizing games as we know it," a phrase right out of a PR department based on exclusive movie sections of the game by the Wachowski brothers. We know how sub-par this game turned out to be. I remember positive evaluations about Forza as a Gran Turismo killer way too early, the list of games hyped in previews is long and in hindsight embarassing.

Previews aren't reviews, and they have to be as neutral as possible.

Premature uncalled judgements in game mags are part of the problem that game journalism still didn't grow up. It is one way that makes it very easy for publishers to bamboozle game journalists who are very often too young and too inexperienced to walk the thin line between getting provileged information and stay independent.

What I would like to see in game mags independent from the quality of the sections is an emphasis on reviews anyway. Cut the preview sections in half, and double the space of the review section. The quality of games and problems of game designs show in reviews of the finished proiduct, not in mouth-watering previews.

Anticipation and speculation about upcoming titles in mags is great and a necessity, but the preview sections that fulfill this need got stuck in immature fanboy journalism of the eighties when the majority of game mags were tailored towards children and young teens.

[Snapple]

Most gaming magazines aren't stupid. They know that games can change drastically from their preview copies to the final product, and that's why previews aren't heavily critiqued or given scores. Publications are responsible with previews for the most part, I think.