Game magazines that died young..

[Daniel Thomas]

Um...a "literary" style? What you're describing doesn't fit the definition of "literary." Perhaps you meant "literal" style?

Most current magazines recite tech specs in their previews, and opinions in their reviews. OPM does a great job of this. Their reviews are polished and professional, as they should be, since you're paying for the privilege of reading them.

The problem with a casual editorial "voice" is that it requires skilled writers and editors, particularly the latter, to prevent it from swiftly descending into amateurish ranting. First-person reviews should NEVER be attempted by gamers-who-write.

-- Z.

Writers have to find their voices to become effective, and this is just something that takes time. You have to grow and expand, and especially expand your own worldview. Knowing everything there is to know about games is good, of course, but to be a truly effective writer, you need some greater context to draw upon.

A lot of the writers for the prozines are pretty young themselves, so they're still finding their voice. That explains the overly structured way these reviews are written. And writing in the first person really requires experience.

Are you sure that advertisers no longer pressure gaming magazines like they did a decade ago? I can't comment for certain, since I hardly touch prozines anymore (I'm not a 13-year-old virgin), but I would still expect an unspoken don't-rattle-the-cages doctrine at play. Perhaps the small number of prozines, ones that cover the industry and not only one console, is skewering my view.

All I know is that when I thumb through a magazine, most of the reviews are glowing and littered with high scores, and everyone's still following the standard Mad-Lib format. Maybe it's just me; I reall miss having a videogames magazine that's fun to READ.

[slownerveaction]

Yeah, first person reviews are VERY difficult to pull off. Even at Insert Credit, where it's been turned into an artform of sorts, their reviews aren't particularly helpful or informative. (I still read 'em, 'cause they're usually good reads!) The problem is that it's almost impossible to go with that style and still provide enough relevant info about the game.

It is true, to a certain extent, that the more "professional" a source you're writing for, the less room there is for experimentation and growth. This is why plenty of "pro" writers also have personal sites where they can offer work that falls outside the norm. That's a good way to go about things, because at the end of the day, most people picking up gaming mags want relatively traditional reviews. On the other hand, there's the 'net for anyone seeking to either provide or read more off-beat content.

[BillKunkel]

Are you sure that advertisers no longer pressure gaming magazines like they did a decade ago? I can't comment for certain, since I hardly touch prozines anymore (I'm not a 13-year-old virgin), but I would still expect an unspoken don't-rattle-the-cages doctrine at play. Perhaps the small number of prozines, ones that cover the industry and not only one console, is skewering my view.

It's funny, but I can recall maybe two or three attempts to censor bad reviews by advertisers in the two decades I worked in game journalism. The original EG, coming along as it did at the beginning of the trend, faced several attempts at bullying. Atari wanted us to report that playing Activision 2600 software on a VCS could damage the Atari hardware. We told them no and that was it. I believe EMI-Thorne once protested a review and Arnie told them to pound salt. They never stopped advertising.

I didn't write as many reviews at VGCE but really, the idea of some game publisher trying to pressure Larry Flynt into running a good review of a bad game is beyond comical. Similarly, at the new EG in the 90s, I know there was an occassional negative rumbling about this review or that comment but it never went anywhere.

I didn't trust DieHard because it was initially published by a retailer. Why else praise an attractive-looking mediocrity like Earthworm Jim as "the game of the decade" unless the retailer ordered a whole lot of them? After they were purchased by Metropolis I trusted them even less -- but that'll happen when everybody's checks start bouncing.

Game companies have much more subtle means of obtaining favorable treatment. Expensive junkets, cool geegaws at conventions, meeting the developers, those are the techniques that work best. Threaten a gamer and his back goes up. Most young game reviewers who have no experience or background in journalism (you know, those oft-mentioned gamers who try to be writers) are corrupted and co-opted far more effectively than they are threatened. When your "buddy" at Nocount Software keeps you up to date on his latest project, consistently assuring you how awesome it is, then the game arrives and it's a steaming pile of buffalo chips, most of these kids try to soften the blow.

Bottom line: If you're a game journalist, all you really have is your credibility and your credentials. If you sell your credibility, even a little, you've lost the readers' respect and you might as well become a publicist.

I've also never heard of an editor or publisher putting pressure on a writer to change a review, though I'd bet most of what I own that it has happened.

Oh yes, one other thing. I believe someone, somewhere along this loop, referenced the NES version of "Jaws" an an indisputeably bad game (you know, the kind even NP would cap on). Well it just goes to show you -- that was one of my all-time favorite NES games.

[SoulBlazer]

Psst -- I happen to like Jaws as well. :D

But good points all around. That's why there's no gaming magazine I have'nt read in over five years and I hop online to various sites to get previews, reviews, and upcoming gaming lists.

[ManciGames]

Um...a "literary" style? What you're describing doesn't fit the definition of "literary." Perhaps you meant "literal" style?

Nah, I meant "literary." But now that I think about it, it is was probably more of an "artistic expression" than a true literary style. You can call it whatever you want, but the fact is: people liked it.


Most current magazines recite tech specs in their previews, and opinions in their reviews. OPM does a great job of this. Their reviews are polished and professional, as they should be, since you're paying for the privilege of reading them.

You're 100% correct. Actually, I'd say that ALL current magazines recite tech specs and opinions. As someone else pointed out, you can get all of that for free on the net. We were trying to give the gamer something more. Something that they couldn't get for free. And that "something" was artistic writing that was entertaining to read, whether or not the game was a gem. Now you may disagree (so I'll just get it out of the way for you so that we can remain civil) and say that it was in fact not "artistic," but instead was "bad," or "horrible," or "amateur." Again, the fact remains that people liked it.


The problem with a casual editorial "voice" is that it requires skilled writers and editors, particularly the latter, to prevent it from swiftly descending into amateurish ranting. First-person reviews should NEVER be attempted by gamers-who-write.

Well said.

[ManciGames]

It's funny, but I can recall maybe two or three attempts to censor bad reviews by advertisers in the two decades I worked in game journalism. The original EG, coming along as it did at the beginning of the trend, faced several attempts at bullying. Atari wanted us to report that playing Activision 2600 software on a VCS could damage the Atari hardware. We told them no and that was it. I believe EMI-Thorne once protested a review and Arnie told them to pound salt. They never stopped advertising.

I didn't write as many reviews at VGCE but really, the idea of some game publisher trying to pressure Larry Flynt into running a good review of a bad game is beyond comical. Similarly, at the new EG in the 90s, I know there was an occassional negative rumbling about this review or that comment but it never went anywhere.


Well, they could have been blowing smoke up our arses, but I also remember EGM commenting more than once (especially in the Reader's Letters section) on advertisers threatening to pull ads.

[MegaDrive20XX]

"Mega Fan"

The smaller verison of GameFan magazine, I still have the first issue, I used to love it's size and all, I could read them during class and never get caught heh

[lendelin]

About the independence of game mags and their reviews:

If we leave potential financial dependency in various forms aside for a moment, and if we leave out the various clout of different mags, journalsists, and developers/publsihers, the intended and unintended 'integrity' of a journalist is key.

There is a co-dependence between publishers/developers and game mags and individual journalists. It's truly a two-way street. Developers/publishers try to use game mags as a marketing tool, mags and journalists need information and like to have access to sources, source materials, and more or less confidential information to sell mags; that's the basic set-up, and within this basic-set-up all kinds of various forms of games play out.

The journalists know the interests of the developers/publishers and take them into account to achieve their goals, and the developers/publishers know the interests of journalists and take them into account also to achieve their goals.

In the end, a journalist has to walk the very thin line to be 'close' enough to get materials and information, and keep enough distance to remain independent in order not to feel obligated, get pushed in an unintential bias, and keep integrity to deliver objective reviews and reports. (confidential information is a bit different, a very well informed jopurnalists can publicly spit out maybe 20% of what he knows, put 30% subtle between lines, and about the rest he has to keep his mouth shut; otherwise his very well-informed times are soon over.)

It's a difficult task to walk this line, it needs experience and self-esteem, it needs the unavoidable ability to develop a very cold and distant view when finally a specific game is reviewed. I'm afraid this is a problem sometimes looking at the age and experience of journalsists in major game mags in our youth-obsessed culture which regards experience and age as a burden and not an advantage. (which is the dumbest thing in the world)

If GI gets an exclusive visit to a developer which works on a highly anticipated game (Halo 2), gets exclusive interviews, screen-shots, first-hand information, they are happy becasue it sells the mag. The developer/ publisher is happy to be on the cover of GI and to get a 6-page in-depth preview becasue it's an ideal starting position to get the game 'out,' fuel the hype -machine, and to be on the mental list of potential buyers. It also increases tremendously the name recognition and image of developers/publishers, which results in sales figures beyond the individual game or games previewed.

I like mouth-watering previews, they are the functional equivalent of pre-coverage of football games consisting of heated speculation and anticipation, and have information value also.

However, here is my criticism about the objectivity of previews/reviews in major mags:

1) There are sometimes positive judgement calls in short and extensive previews which should be reserved only for REviews. Journalists should be aware of the fact that they can only play a small part of the game, the developer didn't send them or let them play in their studio the worst part of the game, it will be an exceptional good part of the future game.

In previews you have to be careful and subtle. Judgement calls in a preview like in the recent one in GI that a story is well incorporated into gameplay (I wanna see that :) ) cannot be made in a preview for a game which is only halfway finished. That's premature, it's hype, it's inexperience, and it's intelluctually not proper.

2) Never ever let guys write the final review for game for which they wrote an extensive preview based on generous access of the developer and publisher.

If you get invited, if you talk to the guys who work an a game, if you get generous source material and information, there is an automatic dependency developing on a personal and impersonal level. It's only humane to like or not to like guys, it's in our nature to be thankful if someone did something nice for you and treated you nice, but objectivity gets easily and UNINTENTIONALLY lost; the necessity to say something bad about a bad final product from guys you liked and treated you nice takes a lot of stamina and persoanl independence. It can be done by guys who know how to walk the line.

There is, however, an easy way out for mags who employ 10 reviewers: let someone write the REVIEW who never met the developers/publsihers. This way you cover the back of the journalsists who has the good connections, in most cases he will still get the good information for future projects(sometimes not :) ), and it's also great for an objective review becasue it should be written by someone who is not burdened by extensive pre-view hype.

3) Review grades of different reviewers for the same game are too streamlined. For the big bulk of games, opinions differ significantly. We all know that :) You have five gamers, and you get easily six opinions. There is no way that consistently review gardes in GI differ only by .25, they are streamlined because of the perception readers don't wanna be confused and want save guidelines for their buying-decisions.

Like it or not, I demand confusion! I like confusion, I have brains enough to make sense of confusion and disagreement. To present different review grades and Pros and Cons is part of maturing game mags. People like the the differing thumbs-up and thumbs-down of Ebert and Roper, at least adults like it.

All of the above problems apply to the information hunting, marketing startegies of developers/publishers, and personal bonding at parties between journalists and developers at E3 as well.


Overal the mags do a pretty good job in their reviews. Remember, it's only 16 years ago when major mags were founded, and at first they didn't even have review grades, just descriptions. LOTS remains to be desired, from the quality of writing, analysis, topics covered, and I think the UNDERESTIMATION of the intelligence levels of your readers. A journalistic culture has to develop for games consisting of unwritten rules of ethics, writing-quality, experience, and training young folk who want to become journalists like we have for politics, movies, art and literature.

Thank goodness hyped and biased reviews for an "Enter The Matrix" are an exception; but to be fair, unlike GI an NP which explicitly recommended buying the game becasue of the exclusive CGI sequences after they pointed out how mediocre the game is, GamePro gave a mediocre game mediocre review grades and did not recommed buying a prematurely released game with buggy, repetitive gameplay and lots of control issues.

The "truth" (if there is such a thing) was told by all of them, but only one game mag didn't fall for hype and treated a game like a movie expansion pack.

The ambigious and distorted reviews for ETM are also an example how easily journalists get caught up with good intentions and loose objectivity without experiencing outside pressure. It's an example in which all of the above mentioned problems came together:

One of the reviewers of GI for ETM pointed out in the issue following the reviews that if ETM sells well it will revolutionize the Hollywood-game industry relationship, and found the possibility very exciting that Spielberg or Lucas would shoot exclusive movie sequences for games. A personal, enthusiastic agenda came in the way of developing a cold and distant view about the final product;

and yes, GI covered the game in a six page extensive review six months before it was released, and the preview was an overly enthusiastic one about "revolutionizing gaming as we know it;" and yes, the guy with the personal agenda was one of the co-authors of the preview as well and was granted generous access for an in-depth-look at the games development; and yes, review grades of FOUR different reviewers for two systems were streamlined for a highly controversial game.

It takes stamina, intellect, integrity, and detachment at the right time to get it right; and even with all of them in place, we get it sometimes wrong.

[ManciGames]

About the independence of game mags and their reviews:
<snip eloquent and spot-on diatribe about game mags and objectivity]


Good lord. Who is this guy and why isn't he writing for a major pub??!?!

[Phosphor Dot Fossils]

First-person should not be in the hands of an amateur when writing reviews. It's incredibly tricky to pull off. So many times it just turns into an ego piece, and the game (which is the point, isn't it?) is quickly forgotten.
I can understand this stance, but you know me, I sometimes feel like I've had an arm cut off if I can't do at least a little bit of first-person stuff. (Chalk this up to absorbing a few years worth of "Arnie the Iconoclast" during the EG years if you like. :D ) How well I do it, I can't really vouch for - that's up to my victims...erm...sorry...readers - but I feel like having some idea of who the reviewer is can be very important when gauging what they're saying. If you have someone who hates RPGs with a passion, it's probably a given that they're not going to give Square's latest a fair shake. I suppose it's up to the editor to filter out what is assigned to whom, to ensure that someone doesn't wind up reviewing something that have too much of a prejudice against (or, for that matter, too much of a predilection toward). But going back to the fanzine thing, those filters aren't always there.

Then again, this is coming from someone who is more of a feature-writer-type-guy anyway - I don't think I could make it as a reviewer and nothing else, not being able to flex some other stylistic muscles. I've got to work something funny in there somewhere, something that's "me," or it'll cost me my soul.

I also have a tendency to go on all long-winded, which I'm sure nobody's figured out by reading this post. ;)

[lendelin]

Maybe GTA, Jak 2 and SSX3 and the likes were so successful becasue you can do both, cut it short and explore for endless hours which has a wide appeal and satisfies very different gaming habits.

You might be on to something there. We've already seen a "mainstream" game adopt that principal in Spider-Man 2.



The exploration structure of GTA is indeed one of the biggest influences in gameplay today. You're right, Spiderman 2 copied it, a Jak 2 did, and even a 'racer' like SSX3 did. It's a combination of linear and non-linear gameplay elements. You can roam around mountains, explore, even linear elements are spread out within the non-linear structure of mere exploring (big challenges, freeride style competitions) which can be just ignored or tackled. It's not even so important anymore if you get a 100% completion rate in this game.

Maybe these games are such a success because they hit (intentionally or inintentionally) the various gaming habits of frequent and casual gamers. You can play for 30 minutes or three hours. You can just race or chase the last little collectible on the mountain. The game doesn't pressure you anymore to do the intense elements (racing) or to do the relaxed free-roaming elements.

If the linearity/non-linearity is combined with elements traditionally associated with action-adventure and RPGs in a racer, you get a rare breed of the past, the successful hybrid game. Free-roaming, collecting items, levelling-up, isn't that what we did in Dragon Warrior when we defeated Goldman over and over again and explored vast terrains? And we all do that now in racers, extreme sports games and traditional sports games which were once characterized by big dividing lines.

Gaming habits changed indeed for many reasons (lots of reasons for changing leisure time activities). It would be interesting to have reliable data about it. In the end, I believe that changing gaming habits result in different genres or games which combine genres; after all, games have to be sold, and the successful game gets copied. Mere gaming habits are probably more important for innovations than the creation of gamedevelopers themselves. They make offerings, and then the decisive factor is if the offering is accepted or not in gamestores.

I realize that has nothing to do with the thread-topic. Yikes :)

[lendelin]

I agree with lendelin here about Nintendo Power. I'm getting really annoyed with people having this attitude that Nintendo Power is just propaganda garbage and that they're "too good to sink down to the level of reading Nintend Power".

Don't let the current state of the magazine blind you to the fact that it was a fine magazine back in the day.

I agree. NP was founded as a marketing tool, it acted as a marketing tool, it was a successful marketing tool, and it got copied. It was an ingenious idea.

NP wasn't biased in Nintendo's heydays, becasue there was no need to be biased. If you got such a comfortable market position like N had, there is leeway for reviews.

I remember very well that I was amazed sometimes how stingy NP was in their review grades. If a game got a 4.3 or 4.4 then my alarm bells went on not to overlook a gem. There was hardly a game which got more than a 4.5, INCLUDING gems developed by N themselves. Again, they could afford it.

It cahnged dramatically when the N64 got in trouble. The reviews were lenient and the grades for even avarage games went up. If you have only once in a while a game come out for the system by a third party developper, you bet there was pressure to review a game in a lenient way.

There were two things which set NP apart from other mags: they mapped out games like no other magazine. NP was a little strategy guide, and since I'm a map fanatic I just loved the magazine. Second, they got the guide business going. Great full colored guides, the NES GAME ATLAS (1990) is still one of the best and useful guides out there, it was a feast. (I have a complete mint collection of NP, and most of their guides from 1989 on. :) )

NP is in a BIG RUT today. The market grew up, and NP didn't grow with it. I'd change almost everything of NP from the layout, topics, and how games are presented. NP re-enforces the image problem of N; and we all know, N has a big image problem.

The most obvious change: big screenshots! It's not good if you have to use a magnifying glass in mouth-watering previews. :)

[Daniel Thomas]

About the Independence of Game Mags, part II (in 3-D):

I'm sure Bill Kunkel knows far more about this subject than I, since, after all, he's one of the three people who pretty much invented videogame journalism. These are all great reads, and I'm beginning to wonder just how much of the issue of Prozine Independence is true and how much is urban legend.

I remember back in the zine days reading European gaming magazines with the other faneds in Chicago '94 (for the CES), and we were just amazed at how harsh their reviews were. 50%, 30%, 20%, a game rated in the single digits. Compare to the US magazines, where reviews would offer some criticisms, but still score in the 80s, with something in the 70s from time to time and nothing under 50.

Then you add in something like Gamepro, with its smiley faces, and Gamefan and it thousand iterations of "this is the greatest game ever made," and EGM bragging about their street-cred because Capcom pulled their ads over Super SF2's poor reviews (mostly sixes). And that feeds into this notion of the professional gaming magazine as a corporate sellout. "Prozine" was its own swear word.

That was our point-of-view, and it was obviously an outsider's view. I can't honestly say to what extent publishers and advertisers tried to influence the magazines' coverage, or how it fits in the larger war between art and commerce.

I can say that as a freelance reviews writer for Gamepro, my reviews were censored; negative comments were removed or softened, the review scores were raised. I can say that the editors I spoke to inisisted that "we only review good games." That's my experience, and it was troubling, even though I was adult enough then to know that editors always tinker with their writers' work. I can't answer whether or not Gamepro intentionally skewers content to please advertisers, then or now. If I could hunt down Chris Strodder (the editor I dealt with), I would love to answer all the questions once and for all.

One more quick story: at the Las Vegas CES in '94, I managed to talk with some representatives for Nintendo. I brought along a pocket recorder to get everyone's words down, because there's no way I would remember anything anyone said (I'm in Vegas 3 months shy of turning 21). I eventually met one woman, who had some authority, and we talked at a table until she noticed my tape recorder. She wasn't very happy, "I didn't know you had one of those," she said, "I'm going to have to erase that." She took my recorder, and spent the next couple minutes trying to erase our conversation (which was pretty empty anyway) while I sat by, dumbfounded.

The punch line to the story? She didn't erase anything. She ended up erasing a lecture from one of my college classes. I think I still have that tape somewhere.

[Arcturius]

Duuno if this has been mentioned yet:-

Total Control From Rapide Publishing (UK) had 11 issues from Nov '98 to Sept '99 when the company went under. It was pretty much what Games TM is now

[zmweasel]

I can say that as a freelance reviews writer for Gamepro, my reviews were censored; negative comments were removed or softened, the review scores were raised.

Hmmm. I did a spot of work for GamePro back in '93 as "Ninja Slug," working with editor Matt Taylor ("Slasher Quan"). While my text was edited to suit the GamePro style, my scores weren't changed at all.

-- Z.

[RCM]

testament89 wrote:

I hope you were kidding about ecm. That guy was a complete fudge packer. All he would ever blab about is how much he loved shooters and how "hardcore" he was. I don't know about you but i rather read a review not how good some dip-shit was at thunder force.

I wasnt kidding. I admire his work. He had/has passion.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[RetroYoungen]

I got into GameFan pretty late, I only have three issues. Did they end on December 2000, the cover being the little black mage dude from FF IX?

My fave thing about it was the Graveyard, and the best one (remember, I've only read three issues) was the Metal Slug 3 coverage. That line in there, "Gentlemen, start your drooling..." or something like that, was pretty cool.

Funniest thing though, one of their last issues dealt with the idea of them shutting down soon, and they openly denied it, saying they were looking forward to eight more years or something. Dirty liars. LOL

[Dreamscape]

I got into GameFan pretty late, I only have three issues. Did they end on December 2000, the cover being the little black mage dude from FF IX?

My fave thing about it was the Graveyard, and the best one (remember, I've only read three issues) was the Metal Slug 3 coverage. That line in there, "Gentlemen, start your drooling..." or something like that, was pretty cool.

Funniest thing though, one of their last issues dealt with the idea of them shutting down soon, and they openly denied it, saying they were looking forward to eight more years or something. Dirty liars. LOL

I got into GameFan pretty late as well, I have the last 7 issues. The Metal Slug 3 article was an Arcade Review, not a Graveyard game, but i know what you are talking about. He said "Gentlemen, Start your ranting...", then he gave a four page review of the game. Out of all the issues i have, Metal Slug 3 was the only game to get a perfect 100%. GameFan was my favorite games mag of all time, and I was sad to see it go. One of my favorite reviews from that mag was in the July 2000 issue. ECM did a review for Final Fight Revenge for the Saturn, and he basically tore that game apart. The review it self was actually pretty funny.

[Dreamscape]

I still have Gamefan's infamous Aug 1995 Issue, ShopKo had them but major retail chains had to pull those (EB, Babbages), yeah, those Jap bastards, LOL.

Concerning Incite, it sounds like dot-bomb start up companies, luring so many clueless/greedy bunch and companies went bellied up, a good lesson to teach those greedy bastard for walking away from your steady job.

What was so infamous about the Aug 1995 issue of Gamefan?

[lendelin]

I'm aware that I already wrote way too much (sorry) but I wanna make two remarks about two fundamental qualitative weaknesses of videogame journalism which I noticed in the last ten years. (the first one got better in the last couple of years, the second one is still dominant today)

1) some reviewers (thank goodness fewer and fewer) still haven't learned that you evaluate a product based upon what it sets out to achieve, and nothing else.

If a game wants to be linear, it's structure is linear, the goal of the developers is to deliver a linear game, it's the dumbest thing in the world if a reviewer evaluates the game based upon non-linear structures.

You cannot critisize a linear game for the lack of it's non-linearity. It's an eternal sin of interpretation and a sign that some reviewers didn't learn the fundamental basics of their craft. A book reviewer who concludes that another book should have been written goes straight to reviewer hell.

If a painter delivers a red wall, you cannot step up and say 'well, its a good quality red wall, but it has one fundamental weakness: it's not yelllow.'

This tendency in reviews was in particular disturbing during the 32/64-bit era when the dominant new innovations were 3D and non-linearity. Thank goodness it got better, but sometimes it still comes through. It's amateurish, and a truly bad sign for the profession.

2) Game journalists in major publications expect game analysis from developers and don't know their tasks when it comes to interpretation.

Interpreation of games is the task of journalists, not of the people who are involved in the creative process.

GI took a moderate step in the right direction when they introduced their 'connect' section which goes beyond previewing and reviewing. They should be applauded for that.

In one of the recent issues was an article about one of the biggest challenges today, the incorporation of stories into gameplay. Thank goodness, finally a little bit of space was used for such an important issue.

Who wrote the article? Two game developers! This is simple and naive. It's the task of journalists to analyse this issue. THEY are the professional observers of the industry, not the developers.

Never espect a good analysis from a writer about novels. Never expect a good analysis from a writer about his OWN novel. Never expect a good analysis from a director about movies. If you wanna evaluate or interpret a novel or a movie, the last one who shoud do it is the author or the director.

The creative process is an irrational one, interpretation and evaluation is a rational process, it's the extreme opposite of creating. Ebert isn't a director, but he sure is a hell of a good movie reviewer.

The article in GI was very disappointing. Why in the world didn't one of the GI-journalist write the article?


At least it was an interesting read, and not just a preview or review of games. As much as I disagree with Bill Kunkel or Steven Kent (who wrote in GI an article similar what Kunkel wrote here, although more moderate and much more ambigious), as much as I believe that they got it almost on all accounts wrong, I say GIVE ME MORE OF THE STUFF. It's an intersting and provocative evaluation of games and the industry today.

I'm not a radical and say dedicate ten pages of your mag to well-written and entertaining analyses; but two pages more maybe? There is an interest out there, there is a market out there for these issues. An existing mag which addresses these issues has it much easier than a new mag which focuses on the issues. (unless it has a hell of marketing- and distribution-power behind it.)

Mags have to grow up. Forum discussions on the Internet are a good indicator that the existing interest in these issues are neglected by the major mags.

[Daniel Thomas]

I can say that as a freelance reviews writer for Gamepro, my reviews were censored; negative comments were removed or softened, the review scores were raised.

Hmmm. I did a spot of work for GamePro back in '93 as "Ninja Slug," working with editor Matt Taylor ("Slasher Quan"). While my text was edited to suit the GamePro style, my scores weren't changed at all.

-- Z.

I do remember that you also wrote for Gamepro long ago; I think I received a couple long letters from you back in the zine days.

I also remember that you used to write a 'gossip' column for Videogames (ugh) where you got in trouble for revealing that software developers used pirated Nintendo systems, and you were rattled by the whole experience. So, what was the deal with that incident? Can you tell all yet, or need we wait another ten years?

As for my reviews, I can honestly say that the scores were raised. My original manuscripts are long since gone, but I recall that negative scores were spiked one half-pont or one full point. Looking back on these reviews now (I've kept copies of everything I've published), I'm noting that the more critical reviews -- Super Wing Commander (3D0), Tony La Russa '95 (Gen), ESPN Football (Gen & SNES) -- always had reassuring comments added in by the editors.

"With plans for revisions next year, this game might be worth checking out," "Only the good crack of the bat stands out," "The music does manage to improve on the SNES's (sic) droning soundtrack." Things like that.

Of course, I also wrote positive reviews, including Madden for 3DO and Brutal Sports Football for Jaguar (I always felt that game had an underrated charm). So I wasn't simply being hyper-critical or deliberately trying to rub feathers.

Again, I honestly don't know if this had happened to other Gamepro writers, though I would have to assume it has. Perhaps there was an unspoken rule among the staff that I, as a freelancer, didn't know about. And, as everyone can clearly see, I never followed 'unspoken rules' very well.

[zmweasel]

I do remember that you also wrote for Gamepro long ago; I think I received a couple long letters from you back in the zine days.

Yeah, I did a couple of zine columns for Danny Han's Circuit City Report (whatever happened to Danny, anyway?) and GEA News. Good times.


I also remember that you used to write a 'gossip' column for Videogames (ugh) where you got in trouble for revealing that software developers used pirated Nintendo systems, and you were rattled by the whole experience. So, what was the deal with that incident? Can you tell all yet, or need we wait another ten years?

As I vaguely recall, I'd received an internal memo from Virgin Interactive in which the company's head of PR asked the in-house developers to "discretely [sic]" stash their Hong Kong SNES-pirating devices, which were fantastic development tools (since you could copy the code onto 3.5" floppies and play 'em that way instead of burning EPROMs). Virgin was rightfully pissed off, and asked VG&CE to dump me from their staff. My editor stuck up for me, but my relationship with Virgin wasn't so hot for a few years thereafter.

-- Z.

[alexkidd2000]

Am I the only one that thought Gamefan review scores were always over inflated? I loved Next Generation and Game Players/Ultra Game Players. In fact, I havent really heard anyone talk about Game Players, it was a good magazine. I really do miss Daily Radar and Next Generation, its really sad they had to go. To be honest though, I used to spend $50 a month on game magazines. It sounds so crazy now. I dont buy any anymore. The internet has pretty much killed off the game magazines I think. You just dont need them anymore. I still have the first issue of Game Players and the second issue or EGM. Are these worth anything? Haha, anyone remember the magazine Video Games and Computing Entertainment? Geez, was that even what it was called? VG&CE i thought were the initials. I remember reading it around the time Genesis was released. Oh well it was crappy anyways!

[alexkidd2000]

Also, this may sound lame but what was the deal with Sushi-X from EGM? Was it always the same guy or did they just use the that name and have different writers?

[esquire]

I'm not sure if this one has been brought up, but I loved PC Accelerator (PCXL). That magazine was hilarious and had great game reviews. Too bad it didn't last long.

[Push Upstairs]

What was so infamous about the Aug 1995 issue of Gamefan?

I'm rather curious about this myself.

What *IS* the big deal behind this issue and why would it require being pulled from the shelves?

[Half Japanese]

I'm not 100% sure of how it was worded, but somewhere in a sports column I believe it was, the writer referred to "dirty Japs" or something like that. I'll get back to you if someone with more knowledge doesn't do so first...

[zmweasel]

I'm not 100% sure of how it was worded, but somewhere in a sports column I believe it was, the writer referred to "dirty Japs" or something like that. I'll get back to you if someone with more knowledge doesn't do so first...

Here's a beefy excerpt from an email that I received back in 1997...

***

Started in a near-closet in Tarzana, California in the heart of the San Fernando valley by a rag-tag group of video game players with no prior publishing background, Diehard Gamefan magazine has experienced a very strange series of ups and downs since its formation in 1992. Headed by Dave Halverson, who had previously founded the Diehard Gamers Club mail order store (and, while editor-in-chief of Gamefan, also continued on as CEO of the mail order for at least four years), and an investor friend of his named Andy Fell (who Halverson knew from his previous job as a used car salesman), the magazine accomplished what few thought possible: it established itself as a competitor to major publications such as EGM and GamePro, occasionally gaining scoops over its major competitors. In addition, the magazine was marked by frenetic page layouts and design which, while often causing articles to be hard to read because of a lack of contrast between the text and backgrounds, was often far more colorful than the pages of its competitors.

However, the magazine faced numerous obstacles, primarily due to a lack of adequate funding and the inability of its editorial staff to hit deadlines. At least once in its early years, the magazine had to "skip" a monthly issue. Even more frequently, the magazine would be released late, causing it to miss newsstand dates and disrupt its distribution schedule. Further problems in the early days included spotty copy editing, causing the magazine to experience an inordinate number (compared to its competitors) of misspellings, grammatical errors, and the printing of "sample text" (placeholder text that was never replaced with the real text).

Strange that all of the problems from its early days would prove to be omens of similar, but far worse things to come. With the company on its last legs and running out of money, in mid-1995 Halverson sold to Metropolis Publications, a newcomer with little previous publishing background, no experience in video games, and two other unrelated titles in its stable: Men's Perspective and Platinum, both general interest men's magazines.

During the time of this transition, the first of what would be many recent controversies struck Gamefan. In what is possibly the most infamous incident in the history of videogame magazine publishing, the September 1995 issue of Gamefan (page 115) contained an article filled with profanity and racism. While the title indicated it to be a review of Electronics Arts' College Football USA '96 game, the article itself was written about Namco's Ace Combat. However, it wasn't strictly a review of Ace Combat. In part, the text read as follows:

"This is the all mighty ace Combat. It will likely take the dubious honor of most kick assest game that ever was (for a SIM) It has all the usual compenents, speed , control, lots of lethal jets and a bitch load of air to air missiles...The sound tracks don't suck neither, wow! bonus shit or what I mean what the hell do those guys at Namco smoke anyway. (wish i had some) I think those little jap bastards love to freak, no i take that back I know those little jap bastards love to freak on military Sims and that's cool if your a little jap bastard but i am not. Us poor white trash from So CA will just have to play it for what it is...."

Due to the fact that the text repeated itself several times, industry observers arrived at the obvious conclusion: Gamefan accidentally printed "sample" text. "Sample," or "placeholder" text, is text placed in a page layout when the actual article has not yet been written, and the designer is attempting to determine a word count for the page. Usually, sample text is unintelligible, i.e. "Sdplm xm mkjqtrx nmvsdr," or something of the sort, so that just in case it is printed, it is obvious that it was not intended to be printed. This is a standard practice throughout the entire publishing world of newspapers, magazines, and advertisements.

However, Gamefan's explanation was far different. In a press release sent to the industry, and in a similarly worded editorial in its October '95 issue, editor in chief Halverson wrote in part:

"....we are the constant target of our competitors. Our September issue was the aim of sabotage. The intention was to include language in our issue offensive to the Japanese to damage relationships and set our friends against us. During the production process, text containing various profanities and language offensive to the Japanese culture was woven throughout the text of the issue. We were able to remove the majority of the language. Despite our efforts, one paragraph contained within an editorial made it through the production process....Unfortunately, because our production process largely involves digitized information on disk and it travels through the hands of several outside sources, it is subject to this type of manipulation. We were caught with our guard down, never having expected such an outrageous act. We have put safeguards in place to insure that this will never happen again. The action was undoubtedly directed to harm GameFan...."

***

Halverson's explanation was, of course, complete bullshit.

-- Z.

[SoulBlazer]

So it was filler that somehow got ignored and printed in the magazine, a placeholder that should have been replaced by a review but did'nt? :eek 2:

Yeah, that's a fuck up. :hmm:

[slapdash]

Anyone remember DCM, GameSport, High End, IGN.com, PS Max, Station, Video Game Review (Pojo's)?

Also, I'm not sure if it qualifies as a magazine exactly, but has anyone run across HieroGraphix Game Journal? I only ever found two of them, and those were 4 years apart! It's unclear how many there might have been in between, though... No idea if it's still around or not either.

[BillKunkel]

The article in GI was very disappointing. Why in the world didn't one of the GI-journalist write the article?

At least it was an interesting read, and not just a preview or review of games. As much as I disagree with Bill Kunkel or Steven Kent (who wrote in GI an article similar what Kunkel wrote here, although more moderate and much more ambigious), as much as I believe that they got it almost on all accounts wrong, I say GIVE ME MORE OF THE STUFF. It's an intersting and provocative evaluation of games and the industry today.

Okay, I give up -- what is it you disagree with Steve and me ABOUT?

[Kid Fenris]

Also, this may sound lame but what was the deal with Sushi-X from EGM? Was it always the same guy or did they just use the that name and have different writers?

For dirt on Sushi-X (and, for that matter, Ed Semrad) check out the blog (http://homepage.mac.com/chris_johnston/C1662594604/index.html) of former EGM staffer Chris Johnston. Very amusing.

[fennec fox]

I'm sorry I didn't discover this thread until so late in the game, especially since I've written for... oh dear... over half of the US games magazines still currently publishing, I bet.

But getting back to the original topic: Does anyone know what happened to Newtype Gaming and/or High End? The former started out like a typical fanzine but was getting pretty damn respectable by the time my issues ran out, and High End... well... I'm hungry for any sort of information at all on that mag. It seems like the most obscure national games publication since Electronic Game Player itself.

[digitalpress]

I'm sorry I didn't discover this thread until so late in the game, especially since I've written for... oh dear... over half of the US games magazines still currently publishing, I bet.

But getting back to the original topic: Does anyone know what happened to Newtype Gaming and/or High End? The former started out like a typical fanzine but was getting pretty damn respectable by the time my issues ran out, and High End... well... I'm hungry for any sort of information at all on that mag. It seems like the most obscure national games publication since Electronic Game Player itself.

"tsr"!!

I've seen quite a few old acquaintances hit the forums this week, glad do have you with us, Kevin.

Uh... sorry, didn't mean to hijack the thread, please carry on.

See ya at CGE, bro.

[The_EniGma]

well one newish mag is retrogamer Please hang in there its a good mag!

[lendelin]

The article in GI was very disappointing. Why in the world didn't one of the GI-journalist write the article?

At least it was an interesting read, and not just a preview or review of games. As much as I disagree with Bill Kunkel or Steven Kent (who wrote in GI an article similar what Kunkel wrote here, although more moderate and much more ambigious), as much as I believe that they got it almost on all accounts wrong, I say GIVE ME MORE OF THE STUFF. It's an intersting and provocative evaluation of games and the industry today.

Okay, I give up -- what is it you disagree with Steve and me ABOUT?

My disagreement is on page 3 of this thread in which I responded directly to your post.

Kent's article was very ambigious. On the one hand he stated that the industry is doing very well, the industry is incredibly successful, EA is among the most reliable developers and publishers, BUT on the other hand ...?????well...well...there is no substantial reasoning against all these good developments, only expressed uncomfortable 'feelings' about the games today compared to past games. He stated past games were more "true" (?), the PS2 has no "soul" (?), the gamers were more committted to their games (?).

I don't know what to do with this kind of ambiguity. It goes in the same direction as your criticism. This kind of criticism is fueled by uncomfortable feelings about big business aspects of the game industry today, plain and simple.

I don't know what "true" games are, I don't know what "true" gamers are, I don't believe in a golden era of games which was more innocent and more creative than todays industry.

The game industry became very successful, and the advantages and disadvantages come with the turf. It's as simple as that; and all the cultural criticism I heard simply misses the target by ten feet.

[Li Wang]

This thread is five pages long and nobody has mentioned Ultimate Gamer? My first issue was the sixth and last, and a little while later I was lucky enough to find the fourth in one of those three-magazines-from-a-few-months-ago-for-a-buck packs in some gas station. The last issue of the magazine featured one of the first (if not the very first) retrospective looks at prototypes I ever read. A couple members of their staff went down to Atari's old headquarters when they were shutting down to check out and write an article on unreleased stuff like 2600 Tempest, Dumbo, Donald Duck's Speedboat, etc. All stuff that seemed really cool and mysterious then that we have easy access to now. The magazine featured a nice blend of new and classic content. If I had to describe it in one sentence, it would be "sort of like Gamefan without the dumb".

I really need to pick up those issues I never got sometime.

[Gamemaster_ca_2003]

I have Issues 4,6,7,8 and 10 of a mag called EGM2 and a SWATPro how a bout those mags.

[fahrvergnugen]

I'm not sure if this one has been brought up, but I loved PC Accelerator (PCXL). That magazine was hilarious and had great game reviews. Too bad it didn't last long.

It's just wrong that it took until the bottom of page 4 in this thread for this mag to be brought up. RIP PCXL.


The quality of gaming journalism is something that I've been thinking about a lot in the past few months. If games have had only twenty-five years to mature, then gaming criticism as an art form has had an even shorter time to find its own voice.

Film and Gaming are both business-driven, collaborative art forms that engage more than one of the audience’s senses, generate emotional responses, and entertain for long stretches of time (although, as has been previously discussed in this thread, games certainly take longer tham movies). Given these parallels, why is gaming criticism so poor?

Compare gaming criticism to music criticism, or better still to film criticism, and you’ll see how glaringly it lacks. Gaming criticism seems to be oriented around hype and anticipation, rather than an honest evaluation of artistic intent and merit. While film criticism has magazines and sites which are just as sensationalistic and producer-fellating as anything in the gaming world, there are also thoughtful, interesting critics such as Roger Ebert, Paul Tatara, Susan Sontag, and David Denby, who bring a level of depth and insight into the collaborative artwork they contemplate. With a few arguable exceptions, many of whom have already posted in this thread, there are no parallel figures in the world of gaming criticism. Even in the case of notables like Kunkel or Meston, they're not names that are known outside their own circles. Where are the stars of gaming criticism? Why are there no game critics whose words are instantly revered and treated as gospel by the gaming public-at-large?

My first partial answer to that question lies in the multi-part review system. If you’ve read the gaming press, you know the drill. First up is a blurb of hype from the press packet. Then comes a bit of discussion on the plot, or perhaps the game’s development process. Then the graphics are reviewed, and a score is given on graphics. Then the audio is reviewed, and this is scored as well. Next the controls are mentioned and scored, and finally the gameplay mechanics get there due. Then the whole thing is summarized in a paragraph or two at the end, and an overall score or grade is given for the finished product. Everyone participating in this thread has read this review a thousand times.

This review sucks.

Gaming as an art form has moved beyond the point where it’s appropriate to consider a game on its different components separately. We’ve been beyond that point since the 16-bit era, the launch of the original Playstation at the latest. For those of you keeping score at home, the Playstation launched in 1995, and turns nine this year. Yet in those nine years, the best gaming criticism can come up with is still the useless crap one can read at IGN. In the last decade, it has failed to substantially evolve.

1995 also marked the birth of one of the great experiments in gaming journalism, Next Generation magazine. Originally just an overseas port of stories found in the UK magazine Edge, Next Generation took on a life of its own and tried to ride the line between industry hype and honest, serious thought given to gaming as hobby and art. It didn't always succeed (the infamous Blasto cover, the year-early favorable Daikatana review), but at least it tried. It was one of the first attempts to write about gaming from the same place that Rolling Stone writes about music. At its best, it even approached respectability. It was also one of the first magazines with serious on-line content. In its day, the Next Generation website was the best, bar none.

Next Generation was also a gigantic financial failure, and by the end of its run, it had been turned into another hype-machine; A candy-coated hundred pages of glossy toilet paper, no better than Game Informer. Worse still, the website had been subsumed by the now mercifully defunct Daily Radar.

There have been other experiments in gaming journalism, but all have fallen by the wayside. In the end, the bullet-point categorized review stands tall above a field of fallen competition. The marketplace, for reasons I have been unable to fathom, prefers it.

And, as I mentioned previously, it sucks. These categorized reviews fail to encompass the overall quality of the end product, how well it meets the goals it set for itself, or the artistic and entertainment value of those goals. They fail entirely to treat games, gamers, and gaming seriously. Gaming is art, we are its patrons. Gaming is entertainment, we are its slack-jawed thrall.

Gaming demands respect for its achievments. Instead, it is broken apart and assigned a number on each of its base components. Rather than discuss the videogame equivalents of texture & brushwork, as an art critic might, we instead have to suffer through reviews that use the word ‘radical’ and the same over-hyped discussion, again and again.

So I guess my question for you all is two-fold: First, why does the marketplace prefer the componentized, score-driven hype review, and second, does a market / will a market ever exist for thoughtful, artistic criticism of gaming as a form?

[Push Upstairs]

This thread is five pages long and nobody has mentioned Ultimate Gamer? My first issue was the sixth and last, and a little while later I was lucky enough to find the fourth in one of those three-magazines-from-a-few-months-ago-for-a-buck packs in some gas station.

I never knew it only lasted 6 issues. I have that magazine with the trip to Atari and i enjoyed that article even thought i'm not a big Atari fan.

Makes me wish Sega or Nintendo would allow articles to be written about old and abandoned ideas.

[Songbird]

Long live ECM!
Does anyone know what Eric is up to these days? I've lost track of him...

[zmweasel]

Long live ECM!
Does anyone know what Eric is up to these days? I've lost track of him...

Cranking out strategy guides for Prima, last I heard.

-- Z.

[Songbird]

Sorry, should have been more specific. I'm looking for a current email address for Eric. If anyone has one, please send it to me, thanks!

[SoulBlazer]

Great recent posts, but I'll add this -- I LIKE how games are reviewed. I WANT to know how the parts of the game work, and then how they mesh together in order to make a overall game. Just like a good movie can be marred by awfull camera work, a good game can be brought down by poor controls. Sure, reviews could be better, but for the most part they work well. What I want out of a review is a honest assesment of how the parts come together, how it compares with other games like it, and what's the best and worstr parts of the game -- and is it worth picking up full price, bargin bin, or not at all.

And besides, just like we're all not going to agree with a movie reviewer on a movie, we all are not going to agree on a game reviewer on a game.

I think the game industry just needs more time to mature. Look at where movies and TV were after 20-25 years, to say nothing of any of the major art styles.

Style and form? Please. :roll: I want a game that's fun to play and will make me lose track of time. I could care less if the developers think they met their goal with it. That will be for the public and critics to decide.

I'll shut up now and let better qualifed people have a shot. ;)

[davec]

I really liked VGCE, nothing too splashy but some good reading.

This is the first issue that I have, dug out some old video game mags, sheesh was it really that long ago?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v348/dvc73/vgandepost.jpg

[slapdash]

Does anyone know what happened to Newtype Gaming and/or High End? The former started out like a typical fanzine but was getting pretty damn respectable by the time my issues ran out,

I think they did about 7 issues, and that was that. I suppose they lasted longer than one might have thought.


and High End... well... I'm hungry for any sort of information at all on that mag. It seems like the most obscure national games publication since Electronic Game Player itself.

I only ended up with two issues, then they ran off with the rest of my subscription money. Wasn't too happy about that...