gbpxl
04-20-2019, 08:34 AM
I tried to think of a title for this thread that wouldnt come off as condescending or insulting but still conveyed my thoughts on this no-longer published magazine that ran from May 1989 to Winter 2011 but I couldnt think of anything, hence the brief topic title.
I know that this publication had a large fanbase during its run so with that mind, I will try to be respectful. But I will run through the main points of why I believe this magazine was the worst of them all.
- their numbering system. If you are collecting these magazines and are struggling to figure out why you don't have issues 81-90, it is because they dont exist. March 1996 was their 80th monthly (well bi-monthly for a short period in 1989) and April 1996 was their 81st monthly issue, but they numbered it 90. Their reasoning was that they were including their offshoot publications in their running total, not just the monthly publications. They simply didnt number their first 80 magazines then when they realized they were approaching #100, they pulled a number out of their ass. Or did they? If you look at EGM's numbering, their March 1996 issue was #80 and April 1996 was #81. So suddenly GamePro is 8 issues closer to #100 than EGM is. And anyone who was reading these mags back then knew how big a deal it was for these companies to reach #100. A reader of EGM even points GamePro's numbering discrepancy and the editor jokingly says that if EGM counted all their supplemental magazines like the yearly buying guides, EGM2, theyd be on issue 200-something.
- fake names. Instead of what all the other publications did (besides GameFan) and use real names, the editors used fake cartoon character names with cartoon pictures. So we have no idea who any of these people were. The reasoning behind this apparently was that there were so many games reviewed each month that they needed to give the illusion that there lots of different people reviewing the games (uh, what?)
- scoring system. Most publications used a simple 5/10/100 point scale and gave a game an overall score. But that would be too easy too understand. No instead, the games are rated in 4 categories; fun factor, graphics, sound/music, and replay value. And for a while, the ratings werent even numbered, they were just pictures of a guys face, so youd have to keep referring back to the legend to know if a game got perfect scores in any one category. When Game Rankings became popular, they told Game Rankings to just use the Fun Factor score when determining what number to use for the aggregate, so lots of games that mightve gotten a perfect 5/5 for fun factor but had some graphical or sound issues (or were short) were now considered to have perfect overall scores. They later started enlarging the fun factor score to emphasize that that was the category that mattered, so just ignore the rest. Later, they started just giving the games a Fun Factor and didnt bother rating the other categories.
- LamePro. Every April issue contained a section that was devoted to false information. Can you imagine a company like CNN, every April having a segment where they flat out lied to you? Gets kinda confusing, especially with magazines when you might be receiving an April issue in February, or a May issue in April. Even readers wrote in, asking if a particular news article was an April Fools Joke and the editors had to clarify that no it was actual news. To be fair, Game Informer did this as well.
Besides that, the humor just seemed fairly juvenile, though that was most of the magazines at the time outside of EGM, Nintendo Power, and Next Generation. Their information is so unreliable because of their bizarre numbering methods, scoring systems and disinformation that I would not recommend using it as a reference guide let alone pay money for it when there are so many better options.
I know that this publication had a large fanbase during its run so with that mind, I will try to be respectful. But I will run through the main points of why I believe this magazine was the worst of them all.
- their numbering system. If you are collecting these magazines and are struggling to figure out why you don't have issues 81-90, it is because they dont exist. March 1996 was their 80th monthly (well bi-monthly for a short period in 1989) and April 1996 was their 81st monthly issue, but they numbered it 90. Their reasoning was that they were including their offshoot publications in their running total, not just the monthly publications. They simply didnt number their first 80 magazines then when they realized they were approaching #100, they pulled a number out of their ass. Or did they? If you look at EGM's numbering, their March 1996 issue was #80 and April 1996 was #81. So suddenly GamePro is 8 issues closer to #100 than EGM is. And anyone who was reading these mags back then knew how big a deal it was for these companies to reach #100. A reader of EGM even points GamePro's numbering discrepancy and the editor jokingly says that if EGM counted all their supplemental magazines like the yearly buying guides, EGM2, theyd be on issue 200-something.
- fake names. Instead of what all the other publications did (besides GameFan) and use real names, the editors used fake cartoon character names with cartoon pictures. So we have no idea who any of these people were. The reasoning behind this apparently was that there were so many games reviewed each month that they needed to give the illusion that there lots of different people reviewing the games (uh, what?)
- scoring system. Most publications used a simple 5/10/100 point scale and gave a game an overall score. But that would be too easy too understand. No instead, the games are rated in 4 categories; fun factor, graphics, sound/music, and replay value. And for a while, the ratings werent even numbered, they were just pictures of a guys face, so youd have to keep referring back to the legend to know if a game got perfect scores in any one category. When Game Rankings became popular, they told Game Rankings to just use the Fun Factor score when determining what number to use for the aggregate, so lots of games that mightve gotten a perfect 5/5 for fun factor but had some graphical or sound issues (or were short) were now considered to have perfect overall scores. They later started enlarging the fun factor score to emphasize that that was the category that mattered, so just ignore the rest. Later, they started just giving the games a Fun Factor and didnt bother rating the other categories.
- LamePro. Every April issue contained a section that was devoted to false information. Can you imagine a company like CNN, every April having a segment where they flat out lied to you? Gets kinda confusing, especially with magazines when you might be receiving an April issue in February, or a May issue in April. Even readers wrote in, asking if a particular news article was an April Fools Joke and the editors had to clarify that no it was actual news. To be fair, Game Informer did this as well.
Besides that, the humor just seemed fairly juvenile, though that was most of the magazines at the time outside of EGM, Nintendo Power, and Next Generation. Their information is so unreliable because of their bizarre numbering methods, scoring systems and disinformation that I would not recommend using it as a reference guide let alone pay money for it when there are so many better options.