Game magazines that died young..

[Gamereviewgod]

Ok, I was going through my racks of zines and came across a few oddities. I'm talking about mags that didn't last a year, some times even less. Here's what I found:

NGamer: Strictly Nintendo mag. I only seen one issue which was the premier. I never seen any more.

Manci: Duh. Still a cryin' shame.

Game Play 2001: I don't think this was supposed to last, but it was only a few issues, put out by Starlog. Really cheaply made, but still a decent read for it's oddballness.

Game Buyer: I loved this one but it sadly died young. Hung in there, but didn't hit the year mark (at least I don't think)

Incite: Ugh. One of my most hated mags of all time, but I still have a complete run. I believe they had a PC mag as well that died even sooner.

That's what I got. I'm not versed in PC 'zines so I'm sure there are more there. What else is out there?

[downfall]

I think it was called Q64. I have one issue of it.. it was a quarterly magazine, and I really only remember seeing the one issue. Had Mission: Impossible for N64 on the cover, and it was dedicated strictly to N64 games if I remember correctly. It was alright.

[Tritoch]

Next Generation had a healthy run, and yet I still think it died young. :(

[Melf]

GameGo! Only lasted one issue.
Manci Games died young. They still owe me my subscription refund too. I guess since issue #2 took 2 months to arrive they feel the refund should as well. :angry:

[Half Japanese]

I remember NGamer, and in fact bought the first and only issue of it (though it's long been misplaced). It was pretty cool (at least in my memory), but where's that remote-control car that uses the GBC as a controller they talked about, with full Game Boy Camera support? Ah well.

Wasn't Game Buyer the last-ditch effort from the Ultra Game Players crew? I seem to remember that one sharing a lot of the same staff.

Also, I think I remember seeing a cheap-ass cash-run of a mag called Video Game Underground which went to "Readers Digest" size after the first few issues and also mostly black and white. I think it was put out by one of those crappy wrestling mag publishers.

You are correct about Incite, but there was at least some irony in that whole situation. GamePRO's Johnny Ballgame left GamePro to head over and work at Incite, which quickly folded. So he basically left a shitty, yet stable mag for a shaky celeb-worshipping mag that was about as appealing as a can of smashed assholes. Exit stage left writerman.

[jwl]

Nintendo Power Advance only had 3-4 issues I think.

[RCM]

Gamefan and GameGo both died too fast. The last team of editors Gamefan had were amazing. Long live ECM! They were truly the best! Ok, some journalist might say GF was nothing more then a glorified fanzine. I could really care less, GF had heart and soul. Something just about every other publication lacks or lacked. RIP Gamefan!

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[NE146]

Lots of gaming magazines died quickly. This offshoot of Creative Computing was one of my favorites and lasted a whole 2 issues :P

http://cvmm.vg-network.com/vag-v1n2.jpg

[zmweasel]

You are correct about Incite, but there was at least some irony in that whole situation. GamePRO's Johnny Ballgame left GamePro to head over and work at Incite, which quickly folded. So he basically left a shitty, yet stable mag for a shaky celeb-worshipping mag that was about as appealing as a can of smashed assholes. Exit stage left writerman.

Incite's German-based publisher was throwing around mad loot, which is why it seduced so many journalists from other publishers. When Incite bombed and the German publisher bailed on America, most of those journalists left the industry, since they couldn't get their old jobs back; they would've had to engage in the painful, endless scramble for freelance work.

-- Z.

[neotokeo2001]

Gamefan and GameGo both died too fast. The last team of editors Gamefan had were amazing. Long live ECM! They were truly the best! Ok, some journalist might say GF was nothing more then a glorified fanzine. I could really care less, GF had heart and soul. Something just about every other publication lacks or lacked. RIP Gamefan!

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

I agree. GameFan was a glorified Fanzine full of Fanboy reviews.

On that note.....Gamefan was(and is) my favorite magazine of all time!! Electronic Games is a close 2nd. Try getting back issues of Gamefan and you will see how people hang onto those old issues. I have a complete run and will never tire of it.

To quote RCM "GF had heart and soul" :hail:

The only person who works in the same style is Zach Meston (spelling?).
He gives an entertaining and informative review. If a game sucks, He'll tell you it sucks and then explains why.

[zmweasel]

GameGo! Only lasted one issue.
Manci Games died young. They still owe me my subscription refund too. I guess since issue #2 took 2 months to arrive they feel the refund should as well. :angry:

GameGo! only lasted one issue for several reasons. One, Mylonas wasn't exactly a beloved person in the game-journalism field; two, GG!'s ultra-mega-hardcore content wasn't exactly geared to bring in the readers. The first and last issue had a write-up of strip-mahjong games, as I recall.

I assume you've already contacted Jaysen about your refund? He's been recently active on these boards (using the handle ManciGames), and I thought he'd stated that everyone should have their refund by now.

-- Z.

[Captain Wrong]

Gamefan and GameGo both died too fast. The last team of editors Gamefan had were amazing. Long live ECM! They were truly the best! Ok, some journalist might say GF was nothing more then a glorified fanzine. I could really care less, GF had heart and soul. Something just about every other publication lacks or lacked. RIP Gamefan!

Y'know, you're right. If I had to point to one thing that probably got me back into gaming hardcore (and helped me remember what I liked about gaming in the first place) it was GameFan. Yes the magazine was baised as all hell, full of inside jokes, elitist attitude and a total mixed bag when it came to the quality of writing. However, there was a more "heart and soul" in that magazine than I've seen anywhere since.

Plus, I gotta love a mag with a major shmup fan as editor. :)

[RCM]

neotokeo2001 wrote:

The only person who works in the same style is Zach Meston (spelling?). He gives an entertaining and informative review. If a game sucks, He'll tell you it sucks and then explains why.

I haven't really read anything of Zachs for the past 10 years or so besides his posts on the board. Could you point me toward some of his stuff?

Also, I wouldn't say I exactly agree from what ive read of Zachs work. I have never seen the same passion and fire that the old GF crew had in anyones work. Ok, maybe my own! That's not a knock to Zach, I am just going on my limited experience of his work. I've ended to many sentences with work. Damn it, another one!

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[Rogmeister]

I remember one called, I think, Intelligent Gamer...there was one called simply Video Games. It was around for awhile and I think EGM basically bought them out just to cancel it so they could get their subscribers.

[neotokeo2001]

neotokeo2001 wrote:

The only person who works in the same style is Zach Meston (spelling?). He gives an entertaining and informative review. If a game sucks, He'll tell you it sucks and then explains why.

I haven't really read anything of Zachs for the past 10 years or so besides his posts on the board. Could you point me toward some of his stuff?

Also, I wouldn't say I exactly agree from what ive read of Zachs work. I have never seen the same passion and fire that the old GF crew had in anyones work. Ok, maybe my own! That's not a knock to Zach, I am just going on my limited experience of his work. I've ended to many sentences with work. Damn it, another one!

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

I don't know what all Zach works on, but some I can think of.

Secrets of the Games Strategy Guides(90's?)
I've seen articles in GamePro, PSExtreme and a few older mags.
Lead?? Writer on several of the best Working Designs games.
And lately I have seen a few(badly needed) articles in PSE2 magazine.

What I like is Zach seems to remember that it's about the games and having fun. I read a lot of reviews by other people that seem to come out of the Review-O-Matic.

Maybe I am just drawing a blank, But what have you worked on? Do you write under another name? I have probably seen your work before but just not connecting the dots.

[BillKunkel]

Ok, I was going through my racks of zines and came across a few oddities. I'm talking about mags that didn't last a year, some times even less. Here's what I found:

NGamer: Strictly Nintendo mag. I only seen one issue which was the premier. I never seen any more.

Manci: Duh. Still a cryin' shame.

Game Play 2001: I don't think this was supposed to last, but it was only a few issues, put out by Starlog. Really cheaply made, but still a decent read for it's oddballness.

Game Buyer: I loved this one but it sadly died young. Hung in there, but didn't hit the year mark (at least I don't think)

Incite: Ugh. One of my most hated mags of all time, but I still have a complete run. I believe they had a PC mag as well that died even sooner.

That's what I got. I'm not versed in PC 'zines so I'm sure there are more there. What else is out there?

I've had some personal experience with short-lived magazines. I think my biggest disappointment was GameFan Sports Network, an all-sports electronic gaming magazine I developed during my mostly-miserable year working for Metropolis during its ownership of the DieHard GameFan franchise. They wanted to expand their titles and I suggested a sports-only zine. They liked the idea and assigned young Rustin Lee as the on-site editor (I was working from home, as I have on every magazine and game site since I quit the original Electronic Games in 1985). We put out two issues of GSN that I was quite pleased with and the magazine had tremendous potential but Metropolis was going broke (they STILL owe me a month's salary -- $7,500, plus interest please, David you slimeball). Cover dates for the two issues of GSN that appeared were Summer and Fall of '97.

A less fulfilling project was a magazine called PC ACE. Again, I believe two issues made it out (at least that's all I can find copies of). The idea was a magazine devoted to sims, military games and science fiction. We had good writers like Tom Basham, Steve Kent, James R. Jones III, Laurie Yates and John Withers. I just edited since I wasn't interested in the subject matter, but we had assembled this huge team of expert writers when our company, FOG, was brought in to develop the content for the Happy Puppy site. But when that went to litigation, FOG tried to use as many of those writers as possible, so we took down strategy guide contracts with Prima and launched PC ACE, among other things.

Anyway, that's two more short-timers for the collector's bin...

Also, Rogmeister mentions Intelligent Gamer. That was basically a fanzine by some marginal talent named Jer Horowitz, I think. I believe Steve Harris bought IG and replaced Arnie Katz with Horrorwitz as editor and they might have even changed the title of the second Electronic Games (the one from the 90s) to IG at some point, but I just don't remember it that well since they always changed the names of our magazines after we left. Of course, as with all the magazines we left, it failed almost immediately thereafter.

Coincidence? Perhaps, perhaps...

[Dan Iacovelli]

I'm surprised that most fo you forgot about Atari's two game mags:
Atari Age (from the atari game club)
and the reincarnation of Atari AGE: Atarian magazine (only 3 issues was made)
while atari Age did last for about a 4 years it did die around the time of the crash.

[underexposed+]

I can't believe no one has mentioned the Official Dreamcast Magazine it was really well done, came with a demo disk but only lasted for like 11 or 12 issues :( .

Incite was one of the biggest pieces of trash i've ever seen the worst gaming mag ever!

[neotokeo2001]

I've had some personal experience with short-lived magazines. I think my biggest disappointment was GameFan Sports Network, an all-sports electronic gaming magazine I developed during my mostly-miserable year working for Metropolis during its ownership of the DieHard GameFan franchise. They wanted to expand their titles and I suggested a sports-only zine. They liked the idea and assigned young Rustin Lee as the on-site editor (I was working from home, as I have on every magazine and game site since I quit the original Electronic Games in 1985). We put out two issues of GSN that I was quite pleased with and the magazine had tremendous potential but Metropolis was going broke (they STILL owe me a month's salary -- $7,500, plus interest please, David you slimeball). Cover dates for the two issues of GSN that appeared were Summer and Fall of '97.



Looking at the polls and top 10 list, It's amazing that we don't have any all sports videogaming magazines now. Looks like you were just a little ahead of the times. I bet EA could promote an all sports videogaming magazine.

[NE146]

Gamefan eh.. Yeah they're dead now but they had a pretty good run! I don't think they died too young.. they just died. I remember my Gamefan box being pretty darn heavy (unlike say, the Joystik box). :P

[neotokeo2001]

Gamefan eh.. Yeah they're dead now but they had a pretty good run! I don't think they died too young.. they just died. I remember my Gamefan box being pretty darn heavy (unlike say, the Joystik box). :P

I don't know what type of paper they used, But you are right, Gamefan was the heaviest magazine around.

The funniest thing about looking back at Joystik and Electronic Games is seeing the Artist Renderings of game screens instead of screen shots. Some of those were not even close!! :D Then again, Back then I did'nt care.

[Gamereviewgod]

Yeah, Gamefan definitely had a good run. The last few issues were impossible to find, but they lasted a long time. Definitley not in the same league as most of these.

How about Gamers Republic? I really liked this one and my run seems to indicate about 2 years. Anyone else know?

[Captain Wrong]

I can't believe no one has mentioned the Official Dreamcast Magazine it was really well done, came with a demo disk but only lasted for like 11 or 12 issues :( .

Incite was one of the biggest pieces of trash i've ever seen the worst gaming mag ever!

Agreed on both points. (Of course, the DC itself had kind of an abbreviated run...)

[vincewy]

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.

[zmweasel]

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.

I wouldn't call the journos who went to Incite "greedy bastards." They were just gob-smacked by the thought of being able to pay their rent on time for once. No less a figure than Bill Kunkel (and I know I can't be the only one who thinks it's SO DAMN COOL that he posts in these forums) once told me, "You have a better chance of winning the Super Bowl than making a living as a videogame journalist."

-- Z.

[briskbc]

I was kind of partial to Gamers Republic. It's main focus was video games and it touched on music, movies, anime and toys. I wish they were still around. They also had a decent section for Japanese releases which I found interesting even though I'm not much of an import gamer.

[zmweasel]

Also, I wouldn't say I exactly agree from what ive read of Zachs work. I have never seen the same passion and fire that the old GF crew had in anyones work. Ok, maybe my own! That's not a knock to Zach, I am just going on my limited experience of his work. I've ended to many sentences with work. Damn it, another one!

There's no question that the GF crew (several of which I've been working with since '95) was incredibly passionate about games, but they were also "gamers who write."

There are two meta-categories of game journalists: writers who play games, and gamers who write. The former category is the one I consider myself part of, although many writers-who-game are new to the hobby, and often reveal their ignorance of its history. The latter category is more passionate, more fanboyish, less literate, and less socially adept.

Let's use god-amongst-men Bill Kunkel as an example of a writer who plays games. You couldn't possibly find someone more passionate about the hobby. His passion drove him to become the first videogame journalist! But he's not only passionate; he's also professional, intelligent, and engaging. He hasn't allowed his passion to become an unhealthy obsession. He's a well-rounded individual, and his writing and criticism are better for it.

I love great games, but I also love great writing. GF's staff was able to express its appreciation of the former, but never came close to achieving the latter. I understand why GF connected with so many gamers of the era, but it never really connected with me, because I kept asking myself, "Why doesn't Halverson hire an editor and a proofreader?"

Will there ever be a Roger Ebert of videogame criticism? I'd argue that we already have him, and he's Bill Kunkel. No other game critic possesses his breadth and depth of knowledge, and his fantastic writing ability. He's the standard by which all other game journos should be judged.

As for me, I've been a full-time game journo since '89, with a three-year intermission at Working Designs, and I assure you that both careers DEMAND passion.

-- Z.

[digitpress Jim]

Yeah, i'm still sad to see Manci Games Magazine go so soon :(

digitpress Jim

[digitpress Jim]

Yeah, i'm still sad to see Manci Games Magazine go so soon :(

digitpress Jim

[BillKunkel]

Gamefan eh.. Yeah they're dead now but they had a pretty good run! I don't think they died too young.. they just died. I remember my Gamefan box being pretty darn heavy (unlike say, the Joystik box). :P

I don't know what type of paper they used, But you are right, Gamefan was the heaviest magazine around.

The funniest thing about looking back at Joystik and Electronic Games is seeing the Artist Renderings of game screens instead of screen shots. Some of those were not even close!! :D Then again, Back then I did'nt care.

Oh, man, was that agony. The freehand artists of the day simply did not get the concept of rendering screenshots. They always tried to make them look "better" (read: more realistic) thereby making them look worse. I remember a rendering of the original Jawbreaker we had done for EG and I spent a really long time with the artist but while the drawing was delightful (and Ken Williams would've given his left nut to have graphics that looked that sweet) it was totally unrealistic as far as the game was concerned.

Not that that stopped us from using it several times.

The first batch of Atari screenshots were B&W slicks, which was okay, except I think EG went full color by about the third issue. Sometimes we used the B&Ws anyway and just overlaid the color. At the time, screen capture technology was in its infancy (and waaaay expensive) so we magazines were totally reliant on the software companies to send us slides. On the other hand, we always stressed that a game does MUCH better with the EG audience if we have an accompanying screenshot. Or else, of course, the shot totally buried it (for some reason, I rarely, if ever, mentioned this).

Our brilliant art director was Ben Harvey (aka Harvey Hirsch, etc. etc.) who even used cut up ad slicks (he hated it, but he did it) every image we ever ran of the Fairchild (later Zircon) Channel F games, for example, were scissored out of an advertisement.

Arnie Katz and I also had to invent a lot of those words. We invented words like "playfield" and "screenshot" -- and of course Joyce was the first person to use the term "Easter Egg" in reference to hidden items in game software.

Hey, we were making it up as we went along. :P

[rolenta]

...they might have even changed the title of the second Electronic Games (the one from the 90s) to IG at some point, but I just don't remember it that well since they always changed the names of our magazines after we left.

Electronic Games lasted from 10/92 - 7/95

It became Fusion (hideous magazine!) with the 8/95 issue and stayed that way through 2/96.

With the 3/96 it merged with Intelligent Gamer to become Intelligent Gamer's Fusion. That lasted for 3 months and with the 6/96 it was called Intelligent Gamer. That magazine lasted for six or so months and the last issue was published in 1/97.

[SoulBlazer]

Am I the only one who does'nt even read gaming magazines these days?

10 yaers ago before the Internet I used to read Nintendo Power and EGM quite heavily, along with another mag that covered C64 and IBM games. But now with the net I can just go online and instantly find what I want, free, often with 24 hours of the game being released.

Not that I don't have the greatest respect for Bill Kunkel, Zach, and the other guys who depend on these magazines for a lot of their income. ;)

[slownerveaction]

There are two meta-categories of game journalists: writers who play games, and gamers who write. The former category is the one I consider myself part of, although many writers-who-game are new to the hobby, and often reveal their ignorance of its history. The latter category is more passionate, more fanboyish, less literate, and less socially adept.

That's so true it's not even funny. I also lump myself into the former, and it's often the tougher position to come from. A lot of game journos these days come up from fan websites, where passion is valued over literary merit--not the best place for a writer-who-games to get started. I grew up the kid who always knew more about games than everyone else, but who also was the biggest reader in his class. So wriiting about games is a natural fit for me. My philosophy is that you can always learn more about games and the history of the industry; if you've got passion for it, that's not a problem. You can't make up for lack of writing skills though. Yeah, you can (and should) refine them, but there's no way to "learn" a natural facility for language and logic.

I'm not as much of a stuck-up asshole as that makes me sound. Honest. :)

[NE146]

Am I the only one who does'nt even read gaming magazines these days?

10 yaers ago before the Internet I used to read Nintendo Power and EGM quite heavily, along with another mag that covered C64 and IBM games. But now with the net I can just go online and instantly find what I want, free, often with 24 hours of the game being released.

Not that I don't have the greatest respect for Bill Kunkel, Zach, and the other guys who depend on these magazines for a lot of their income. ;)

I still read gaming magazines constantly.
.... CLASSIC gaming mags that is :D

Hey it goes right along with retrogaming and collecting. In my opinion you just can't beat reading reading mags such as Electronic Games, Joystik, Video Games, or heck... even original Nintendo Power, etc. with all the hype, pictures, reviews, writeups, interviews, "previews", ads, and other hoopla associated with the games when they were new and exciting.

That is one thing you just can't really find online. Unless you're reading an online scan of a magazine, any review of a 2600 or even an NES game you'd find online for example.. will probably be a "retro" review, or someone's impression of the game looking back with time-tinted lenses. Or even worse, most times the most mention any older obscure game gets online is usually in the form of a simple listing in a huge database of titles for a console for people to check off in their collections. BORING. :P

There are many obscure old games I've never played. But lots of times I'd be reading through one of my mags and read an article that mentions a particular game. I also came across some reviews and maybe see a full page ad. It'd get me intrigued enough to go try it out! It's kind of hard to get that kind of gestalt for old obscurities on the web :P

And yes.. I do peruse today's gaming publications as well. It just doesn't seem as fun though :)

[BillKunkel]

Am I the only one who does'nt even read gaming magazines these days?

10 yaers ago before the Internet I used to read Nintendo Power and EGM quite heavily, along with another mag that covered C64 and IBM games. But now with the net I can just go online and instantly find what I want, free, often with 24 hours of the game being released.

Not that I don't have the greatest respect for Bill Kunkel, Zach, and the other guys who depend on these magazines for a lot of their income. ;)

Fortunately, I haven't depended on game magazines for income since around 1997. And no, except for Tips N Tricks which Chris is kind enough to send me (and even then I only read the back-of-the-book columns), I don't read game magazines anymore either.

First, I like magazines that cover electronic games as a lifestyle, which was always the EG philosophy. I'm not into system books or video or computer game-only pubs. To me, it's got to be able the world of gaming. If it's a game and it plugs in or uses batteries, it qualifies. (I almost said "If it's entertainment..." but realized a pretty obvious exception right off the bat, so to speak.) So when Next Generation folded, that was it for me.

I read Game Informer occassionally, but truly the Internet has made available what the magazines never could -- immediiacy (in the 80s, a 3 month deadline was remarkably fast turnaround). The magazines today can only offer strategy and ANALYSIS. But since older and intelligent readers have been largely alienated, where are you going to sell a book on EG Analysis -- Walmart?

Then there are the magazines produced as proaganda by the company selling them -- Nintendo Power, for example. Now what kind of idiot believes Nintendo Power is giving them an objective review? A real idiot or a naive kid, that's who.

But really, the Internet has killed the game magazines (like video killed the radio star, I guess) because, on top of everything else, the Net is FREE. Of course, that's also why the sites that aren't either supported by dedicated fans or by having made a money deal don't last very long.

Right now, the game business is consuming its own young, with a generation raised on sequels and slightly improved engines -- and no magazine to tell them the truth. Ever wonder why no videogame sports franchise ever realeases simply the previous season's stats to plug into last year's videogame? No, you need an entirely new version of Madden and NHL and MLB etc. every year. So this year they've put the star's actual faces on the players, which means lots of close-up action and large figures, which means rotten play action where you can't see what's happening outside of your immediate zone.

[Aswald]

Atarian. Lasted what, exactly 3 issues, back in 1989?

It was regretable that that was the only magazine for Atari 7800 owners. Although others carried some news about that console (GamePro), Atarian was essentially it.

The racist and stupid "Ninja-Endo" comics really marred that magazine, that and the fact that it was apparently written for dopy 9-year olds. Yeah, sure, it was a rat-faced stereotypical Japanese villain with "compulaserbugs" that was to blame for Atari's problems, not the fact that they simply did not produce the sort of games gamers in the late 1980s wanted, such as RPGs (except Midnight Mutants, when the 8-Bit era was already pretty much over) and side-scrolling/level/boss games- heck, thanks to Opcode, even ColecoVision owners will have Nemesis 3 (or something similar), and Sky Jaguar is at least as good as Planet Smashers, if not better.

And who could forget that letter from someone who was unable to finish the 7800 version of Impossible Mission ("Is the game aptly named and truly impossible?"). What was the reply? No, he must've missed something somewhere. Lo and behold, most cartridges DID have a bug that made it impossible to finish! How crazy did that person get, trying to map out everything, but convinced that it was possible? Bleah.

[neotokeo2001]

Am I the only one who does'nt even read gaming magazines these days?


I get about 90% of the gaming magazines that are available for free. Check out the internet and you can find almost anything for free.
Check out:
cheapassgamer.com
Save your money so you can buy more classic games. :D

[Lemmy Kilmister]

Gamefan and GameGo both died too fast. The last team of editors Gamefan had were amazing. Long live ECM!

O_O 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.

On the other hand i agree gamefan was my fav mag at the time and gamego lasted how much 2 issues? It was also sad to see gamers republic go. :(

[lendelin]

Then there are the magazines produced as proaganda by the company selling them -- Nintendo Power, for example. Now what kind of idiot believes Nintendo Power is giving them an objective review? A real idiot or a naive kid, that's who.



I disagree. I'm neither an idiot nor a naive kid, but NP gave you very reliable and objective reviews until the N64 got in trouble. Since then, unfortunately, they are biased due to the market position of the N64 and GC; but the comfortable market position of the NES and SNES allowed the NP reviewers to be as critical about games as any other mag at the time including Nintendo published and developed games!


Right now, the game business is consuming its own young, with a generation raised on sequels and slightly improved engines -- and no magazine to tell them the truth

Isn't that a 'bit' exaggerated? :) I don't know what the truth is, you probably don't know either, and for the revolutionary beast to eat it's own children the game industry does remarkably well, and it gets better and better, the industry is expanding and broadens the sociodemographics of players.

If game offerings would only consist of slightly improved sequels, insignificant more of the same, and the gameplayers weren't intelligent enough to realize it, then you would be right; but then there is no need for the industry to eat it's own children, the children would eat the mother by merely stopping buying games. Unless you assume that the majority of gamers aren't intelligent enough to resist hype, fall for cheap splashy-flashy effects, and are willing to throw hard-earned money away, it doesn't make sense.

I wish games would be taken as seriously as movies by the review elite, and I'm convinced someday they will; it's still some way to go. The big obstacle isn't so much an acceptance of games as a serious form of entertainment, the biggest obstacle is to train and breed professional reviewers who are intelligent, have a broad cultural background knowlwdge, are good and intelligent analysts, and bring wit them the love and knowledge about games. In short, like with reviewres for movies, art and literature, you look for a profession which can't be trained like biologists, but have to evolve gradually.

It's a very long way to go! :) The same applies for serious historical research about games which is at it's early infancy at best, and doesn't even come close to low academic standards.

[BillKunkel]

Then there are the magazines produced as proaganda by the company selling them -- Nintendo Power, for example. Now what kind of idiot believes Nintendo Power is giving them an objective review? A real idiot or a naive kid, that's who.



I disagree. I'm neither an idiot nor a naive kid, but NP gave you very reliable and objective reviews until the N64 got in trouble. Since then, unfortunately, they are biased due to the market position of the N64 and GC; but the comfortable market position of the NES and SNES allowed the NP reviewers to be as critical about games as any other mag at the time including Nintendo published and developed games!


Right now, the game business is consuming its own young, with a generation raised on sequels and slightly improved engines -- and no magazine to tell them the truth

Isn't that a 'bit' exaggerated? :) I don't know what the truth is, you probably don't know either, and for the revolutionary beast to eat it's own children the game industry does remarkably well, and it gets better and better, the industry is expanding and broadens the sociodemographics of players.

If game offerings would only consist of slightly improved sequels, insignificant more of the same, and the gameplayers weren't intelligent enough to realize it, then you would be right; but then there is no need for the industry to eat it's own children, the children would eat the mother by merely stopping buying games. Unless you assume that the majority of gamers aren't intelligent enough to resist hype, fall for cheap splashy-flashy effects, and are willing to throw hard-earned money away, it doesn't make sense.

I wish games would be taken as seriously as movies by the review elite, and I'm convinced someday they will; it's still some way to go. The big obstacle isn't so much an acceptance of games as a serious form of entertainment, the biggest obstacle is to train and breed professional reviewers who are intelligent, have a broad cultural background knowlwdge, are good and intelligent analysts, and bring wit them the love and knowledge about games. In short, like with reviewres for movies, art and literature, you look for a profession which can't be trained like biologists, but have to evolve gradually.

It's a very long way to go! :) The same applies for serious historical research about games which is at it's early infancy at best, and doesn't even come close to low academic standards.

I repeat: anyone who swallows the opinions fed to them by the company that makes, approves and determines number of units on every piece of software created for its system is, at best, naive.

I'm afraid you took my "consuming their young" metaphor a trifle literally. However, when one looks at 10 Best lists and the sales charts, it's pretty difficult to argue that the majority of today's software is the same as last year's software with a copuple of new "features" -- whether you needed them or not -- and engine tweaks that require PC users to buy yet another graphics card or similar upgrade.

Today's games are not largely valued on play quality or originality. They are largely inadequate attempts to produce interactive films (a category that has had its ups and downs throughout the history of e-gaming but has never before been a staple). Lots of cinematics and CGI character close-ups work well in movies, but if it doesn't improve the game play, it's just needless decoration.

Until games concentrate more on play value than on sound and graphics; until game creators realize they aren't making movies and planning franchises -- we will continue to see incremental growth in some areas and incremental shrinkage in others.

I stopped reading game magazines when they stopped talking about things like that and showed no interest in publishing analysis. And so when I feel like sucking in the scene, I hit the sites and forums. Other than the classes in game design that I teach at UNLV, I make my living elsewhere.

Comic books ate their young too, you know -- again, metaphorically -- by raising a generation of mad collectors and artists and writers who had grown up reading nothing but comic books. It took a strong input by British writers and artists -- and filmmakers in the US -- to bring about what revitalization the comics industry has attained.

The game business has already lost most members of the generation that discovered videogames in the late 70s. Computer game sales continue to dwindle away (they'd be gone already if the consoles had gotten on the Internet stick earlier), sales of "M" games decline (limiting the creative freedom in an already limited field), and 17 of the top 20 selling videogames in 2003 were sequels.

Those are not Good Things.

Right now, to bring this full circle from Nintendo Power, I believe Nintendo is the only game company with an original idea. For the industry overall, sales overall increase, but marginally -- and we won't see new console systems before Xmas 2005 at the earliest. How will the industry do with another two years of sequelitis?

Original ideas once were valued. Today, the values seem to lay in cinematics (that the player will tire of the third time in), more frames per second, more sprites, more fog effects, etc. That, and the failure of the industry to market its creators (don't get me started) will hurt this industry over the next few years.

[GameBoy]

Nintendo Power Advance only had 3-4 issues I think.

I think that was sort of a promotional magazine for when the GBA first came out.

[SoulBlazer]

I agree with a lot of your points, Bill, but I play casual games as well as hardcore ones (all three football games this year, for example) so I always have games to buy.

And I would argue most of the 'original' ideas are on the computer now. It's possible for two people to make a good game, host it on a website, and sell it totally online anywhere in the world. Very similar to how it was possible with the Atari 2600 back in the early 80's.

Right now I'm playing (and loving) Spider Man 2, which IS a sequel and based off a hit movie, but it DOES have some original game play combined with tried and true elemets (GTA III) and it all comes together for a very fun game. Not all of the 'modern sequels' HAVE to be bad. :)

[BillKunkel]

I agree with a lot of your points, Bill, but I play casual games as well as hardcore ones (all three football games this year, for example) so I always have games to buy.

And I would argue most of the 'original' ideas are on the computer now. It's possible for two people to make a good game, host it on a website, and sell it totally online anywhere in the world. Very similar to how it was possible with the Atari 2600 back in the early 80's.

Right now I'm playing (and loving) Spider Man 2, which IS a sequel and based off a hit movie, but it DOES have some original game play combined with tried and true elemets (GTA III) and it all comes together for a very fun game. Not all of the 'modern sequels' HAVE to be bad. :)

Absolutely not. I've been a pretty faithful fan of the Bond games, for example, as well as THQ's wrestling sims. I just don't think sequels should comprise 90% of the market.

[ManciGames]

GameGo! Only lasted one issue.
Manci Games died young. They still owe me my subscription refund too. I guess since issue #2 took 2 months to arrive they feel the refund should as well. :angry:

There were about 10 to 15 people (a miniscule amount when you consider the number of refunds that were made) that we were unable to make a refund to for one reason or another. We have sent emails to each of those people (you too, Melf) and have resolved most of them.

Please email payments@mancigames.com and we'll get you sorted out. I can even forward the original refund email to you again so that we can cure any ill will.

If any of you other folks reading this are one of those few remaining people, please also email payments@mancigames.com and we'll get ya taken care of.

Thanks!

[ManciGames]

GameGo! Only lasted one issue.
Manci Games died young. They still owe me my subscription refund too. I guess since issue #2 took 2 months to arrive they feel the refund should as well. :angry:

I assume you've already contacted Jaysen about your refund? He's been recently active on these boards (using the handle ManciGames), and I thought he'd stated that everyone should have their refund by now.

-- Z.

Thanks for pointing him in our direction Zach. Much appreciated.

I would have replied yesterday, but as these things tend to happen, my internect connection was severed. Gotta love technology!

[ManciGames]

I can't believe no one has mentioned the Official Dreamcast Magazine it was really well done, came with a demo disk but only lasted for like 11 or 12 issues :( .

Incite was one of the biggest pieces of trash i've ever seen the worst gaming mag ever!

Agreed on both of those points. I loved The ODCM, though it went downhill fast around issue 10 or 11. I think they had an article about how to paint your Dreamcast or something that took up like 5 pages. When you see that, you know they are running out of ideas.

I picked up one issue of Incite because I was intrigued by the premise. It reminded me of a magazine for dorks who want to be cool. As opposed to something like Play, which is a great magazine for dorks who are just happy being dorks. People like me. LOL

[ManciGames]

I wish games would be taken as seriously as movies by the review elite, and I'm convinced someday they will; it's still some way to go.

I really don't see that happening for at least another 20 years or so, if ever. Gaming didn't really hit the mainstream in a big way until 1997 or so. Sure, the 2600 was in just about every house in the United States by the mid 80's, but people really did see it as a fad. They sat them in their closet next to their pet-rock as soon as the novelty wore off.

The reason gaming will probably never have the same type of review culture as movies is simple: A movie lasts only two to three hours. An average adventure game nowadays lasts about 20 hours. This is a massive difference and a major deterrent to engaging the masses. 60,000,000 people have already seen Spider-Man 2 because it only involves a 2 hour commitment of their lives. On the other hand, 60,000,000 people will NEVER commit 20 hours to one game. Heck, even a Harry Potter book only takes eight to 10 hours to complete.

For videogames to evolve into the same type of respected medium that literature and film has attained, the industry will need to parcel these epic games down to tight 5 or 10 hour chunks that the masses can enjoy in their entirety before losing interest. Hardcore gamers hate to hear the battle-cry of "shorter games," but the medium will only evolve if that happens.

[ManciGames]

Right now, to bring this full circle from Nintendo Power, I believe Nintendo is the only game company with an original idea. For the industry overall, sales overall increase, but marginally -- and we won't see new console systems before Xmas 2005 at the earliest. How will the industry do with another two years of sequelitis?

I think the public has already shown what they think of original ideas. Witness the Sega Dreamcast. That system had more original stuff come out in an 18 month span than most systems spit out over 5 years. The public shrugged their shoulders and asked the counter-clerks when their PS2 was coming in.

Sad, sad world we live in...

[Daniel Thomas]

When I think of videogame magazines, I always come back to the same thing: fanzines. Ten years ago, I would much rather read through the zines, which were far more enlightening, and far better reads. These were the only sources for REAL game reviews, not the standard cookie-cutter Mad-Libs style of game reviews most prozines have always labored in. The zines just had more passion and sincerity.

I don't know about other faneds, but I envisioned that we were creating a new movement, one that would eventually migrate to the professional magazines. For a time, it seemed to be true, with many of us finding paid work, and the arrival of Edge/Next Generation, and the short run of GEA (I remember going on a Duluth radio station to plug GEA during the Mortal Kombat flap).

The dot-com bubble and recession pretty much killed off the prozines. There were just too many magazines of dubious quality, all aimed at the same horny teenage male set. They still do; I recently saw a current issue for PSM, which sticks a "Swimsuit Issue" on its cover. I mean, c'mon, that's just sad.

I also agree with Bill Kunkel that the Internet rendered a lot of this obsolete. The old thrill of waiting for that new issue of EGM or VG&CE for news on those upcoming games is long gone. I can go online and see everything the moment it happens. Why should I pay five bucks for some nerdish writer to fumble through bad surfer slang and masterbation jokes?

Who's left now? EGM, GamePro, Game Informer. GI is still published by a retail chain, EGM has its moments yet still caters to frat boys, and GamePro still slaps smiley faces on all its reviews. Are they still threatened with lost ads if they write anything critical? What's the deal with that?

Now, I understand that the publishing industry in general has struggled for a number of years, and catering to the frat boy set (think Maxim) has worked to some extent. But I still think there's a larger market that's being missed. I miss Electronic Games, VG&CE, Next Generation. I still want gaming magazines that offer quality writing, deeper analysis, and generally tried to push the industry forward. The public needs to be educated, just as they need to be shown that there's more to movies than the tired blockbusters at the mall.

Maybe the high costs of running a magazine means quality prozines are a thing of the past, and maybe the Internet is the place to go to. There are still a number of us who are writing something that's worth reading, and the Internet is letting us reach a far wider audience than the zines ever could (who among us sent out more than 100 copies on an issue?).

[Melf]

There were about 10 to 15 people (a miniscule amount when you consider the number of refunds that were made) that we were unable to make a refund to for one reason or another. We have sent emails to each of those people (you too, Melf) and have resolved most of them.

Please email payments@mancigames.com and we'll get you sorted out. I can even forward the original refund email to you again so that we can cure any ill will.

If any of you other folks reading this are one of those few remaining people, please also email payments@mancigames.com and we'll get ya taken care of.

Thanks!

Email sent.

[Crush Crawfish]

I miss Gamenow. Easily the best magazine of the current generation of games. And Gamefan totally kicked ass. It's too bad we don't see quality mags like that one anymore.

[ManciGames]

Who's left now? EGM, GamePro, Game Informer. GI is still published by a retail chain, EGM has its moments yet still caters to frat boys, and GamePro still slaps smiley faces on all its reviews. Are they still threatened with lost ads if they write anything critical? What's the deal with that?


You guys really should give Play a try. It's the closest I've come to finding a mag to replace my beloved Next Gen and Daily Radar...

Their reviews are sometimes suspect, but the feature articles are usually second to none. You just have to learn to dig through the hype.

[BillKunkel]

When I think of videogame magazines, I always come back to the same thing: fanzines. Ten years ago, I would much rather read through the zines, which were far more enlightening, and far better reads. These were the only sources for REAL game reviews, not the standard cookie-cutter Mad-Libs style of game reviews most prozines have always labored in. The zines just had more passion and sincerity.

I don't know about other faneds, but I envisioned that we were creating a new movement, one that would eventually migrate to the professional magazines. For a time, it seemed to be true, with many of us finding paid work, and the arrival of Edge/Next Generation, and the short run of GEA (I remember going on a Duluth radio station to plug GEA during the Mortal Kombat flap).

The dot-com bubble and recession pretty much killed off the prozines. There were just too many magazines of dubious quality, all aimed at the same horny teenage male set. They still do; I recently saw a current issue for PSM, which sticks a "Swimsuit Issue" on its cover. I mean, c'mon, that's just sad.

I also agree with Bill Kunkel that the Internet rendered a lot of this obsolete. The old thrill of waiting for that new issue of EGM or VG&CE for news on those upcoming games is long gone. I can go online and see everything the moment it happens. Why should I pay five bucks for some nerdish writer to fumble through bad surfer slang and masterbation jokes?

Who's left now? EGM, GamePro, Game Informer. GI is still published by a retail chain, EGM has its moments yet still caters to frat boys, and GamePro still slaps smiley faces on all its reviews. Are they still threatened with lost ads if they write anything critical? What's the deal with that?

Now, I understand that the publishing industry in general has struggled for a number of years, and catering to the frat boy set (think Maxim) has worked to some extent. But I still think there's a larger market that's being missed. I miss Electronic Games, VG&CE, Next Generation. I still want gaming magazines that offer quality writing, deeper analysis, and generally tried to push the industry forward. The public needs to be educated, just as they need to be shown that there's more to movies than the tired blockbusters at the mall.

Maybe the high costs of running a magazine means quality prozines are a thing of the past, and maybe the Internet is the place to go to. There are still a number of us who are writing something that's worth reading, and the Internet is letting us reach a far wider audience than the zines ever could (who among us sent out more than 100 copies on an issue?).

You know, I don't think my old partner Arnie Katz gets nearly enough credit for jump-starting the e-game fanzine revolution of the early 90s. Arnie, Joyce and I had been publishing fanzines since the 60s dealing with the world of sf, horror/sci-fi movies and just plain "faanish" fandom -- mostly personal essays.

Fanzines date way back to like the 20s, when the earliest fmzs were published by printing press professionals and wealthy hobbyists. These fanzines were not about content, just presentation, layout, fonts, and other technical components of the printing tech of the time. But soon thereafter, groups of creative science fiction fans began producing amateur magazines, dubbed fanzines, which were PRIMARILY about content. As cheaper tech such as ditto and mimeograph (and later offset) machines became available, the number of these fanzines increased almost exponentially, as did the subject matter.

So, as a long-time practitioner of fanzine-creation, I suggested that Arnie (an even longer-time practitioner) start talking about publishing fanzines to our readers at the new EG back around '91-'92; explain to them what neat things they were and how fanzines could be produced cheaply. He told them how to get art, distributed layout tips, explained about letters of comment (LOCs), etc. He wrote numerous columns on the art of the fanzine and eventually a then-unknown but obviously gifted hobbyist named Joe Santulli came in and took over the column. But I really feel that Arnie, more than any other figure, was responsible for the electronic gaming fanzine boom of the 90s. He developed relationships with most if not all of the top fmz editors of the time and was a one-man fount of information on how to get it done.

In any case, I rarely if ever see his name mentioned with regard to the fanzine boom so I couldn't resist throwing him some well-deserved props.

[allsport11]

Official Dreamcast Magazine. We should still be reading this one every month but Nooooooooo, Sega had to go ahead and stop another system too short. :angry:

[lendelin]

I repeat: anyone who swallows the opinions fed to them by the company that makes, approves and determines number of units on every piece of software created for its system is, at best, naive.


IF someone would "swallow' the reviews, then you'd be right by definition; but trust me, I don't swallow reviews, I read them, and when I read, my brain is pretty active. :)

Nah, NP was VERY critical in their reviews, they could afford it because of a comfortable market position. There was hardly a game which got the highest review grades, a 4.5 out of 5 was a rare instance even for first-rate games. Look NP up, and you'll see I'm right! I saw a lot more highest grades in Gamepro and EGM than in NP.

I'm aware WHY NP was founded, and I'm aware of the early Yamauchi word "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all" (and they put the bad games in the quickie section); but NP evolved, and gave some of the most critical review grades of the time. Again, this changed around 1998.

...and trust me, I'm way beyond "naive" when it comes to reviews. :)


I'm afraid you took my "consuming their young" metaphor a trifle literally.

Nah, metaphors can never be interpreted literally, that's an eternal sin of iinterpretation; but they have to be appropriate for the the process described, and in your context the metophor didn't make sense. It's only minor, doesn't have to do with our substantial reasoning, I just like to take a wrongly used metaphor around, fill it with my reasoning, and present it as a counter-argument.

The substantial reasoning stands, players aren't dumb, they would get fed up with the 'same old, same old,' would spend their money for something else, and by stopping buying games they would eat their mother pretty mercilessly, that goes for frequent gamers, adults, kids, and casual gamers.

I completely disagree with the dark picture you draw about todays games, their quality, and the state of the industry.

You say TODAY games
- aren't "largely valued on play quality or originality"
- "focus too much on sound and graphics"
- "values seem to lay in cinematics"

...and "once original ideas were valued" in stark contrast to the present.

This is an exaggerated picture of todays game quality based on a presumably past golden age of videogames which didn't exist in the first place. A distorted, positive view of the past is used as a measurement tab of the present in order to to critisize aspects of the game industry today; the resuly is a negative carricature of the present.

I heard your arguments so often in various forms; I had my quibbles and quabbles with YOSHIMabout it, but I think in the meantime we completely agree about the issue. Let me quote what he recently eloquently summarized:


After reading some of the posts and the more I think about it, I think a lot of us (me included) have a serious warped sense of hindsight. We talk about how much crap there is today but we hardly ever put into perspective that, maintaining an aspect ratio, there was the same amount of crap in the "golden days" as there are now. And I find that there isn't so much true "crap" as there are many "average" games.

When I think back to the NES it's actually difficult for me to come up with a good wad of piss poor titles that deserve to be called crap. There's King Neptune, Jaws comes to mind, Seicross is another but what I remember most are all the average games. The ones that are worth a rent or a borrow but not worth buying. I played a LOT of games like that. I think what happens is that we tend to shovel those average games into the "Crap" pile because we see them as tired, worn out, rehashed material. Yet in the same thought we can hail a variety of SHMUPs, console RPGs, platformers and such as bright shiny gems even though a majority were based on tired, worn out, and somewhat rehashed material.

As I said before, critics have been saying the same things we are for years but the train keeps on movin'. We still get the same great games that seem to glow, the average titles fill the ranks as before and the schlock get tossed to the bargin bin just as fast as they ever did.

From the Atari times on all the bad aspects were there which you put in the monopoly box of today.

Market pressures which cut original game ideas short, good games rejected becasue of sub-par graphics at the time (read a couple of interviews with Atari developers on this site), hunting for movie licenses because of the built-in marketing, prematurely released games, profit hunting, an array of copy cat clones of the successful games (how many Pong clones and Gradius clones were out there?), the lamentations about the lack of innovation, and after 1984 the evrlasting evergreen of a possible videogame crash around the corner.

Despite (and/or because) of all this exaggerated criticism the industry expanded, grew, created gameplay innovations, new genres, broadened the demographics of players, and in the recent past even bred a remarkable and often overlooked new game type which was very unsuccessful in the past - the hybrid game which blurs more and more the lines of the traditional genres (more successfully done by American developers than Japanese developers which might be ONE reason why the industry does relatively better in the US than in Japan in the last years).

We get a great variety of games today, a lot more games, more high-quality games, the sociodemographics of players expanded (even moderately the long constant gender-bias), the fierce competition breeds innovation, the fierce competition is there BECAUSE a lot of money can be earned with games, and we still complain like little spoiled kids in a candy store who ate too much candy.


They are largely inadequate attempts to produce interactive films (a category that has had its ups and downs throughout the history of e-gaming but has never before been a staple). Lots of cinematics and CGI character close-ups work well in movies, but if it doesn't improve the game play, it's just needless decoration.

That's absolutely right. One of the biggest challenges for game developers today is the incorporation of stories into gameplay so a story can be PLAYED and not merely watched. The most important aspect of a good game, the identification of the player with the game, works very differently for movies and literature, and extensive CGI sequences interrupt this identification process more than enhancing it. Story elements which can be played should never be watched;

but unlike you, I believe that game developers acknowledged the problem and are working on it. GI (to say something about the actual topic :)) addressed this issue albeit in a minor way in interviews with game developers, and there was even an article of two developers in one of the recent GIs. Unfortuantely, it wasn't a good one, the creative people are in rare instances also good analysts.

Give developers time, they are working on it so Xenosaga is the end of a development period and not the beginning. Incorporating stories into gameplay which sets games apart from movies and literature is a very difficult task. Videogame development is and was ALWAYS gradual, slow, and continual, there is not even ONE revolutionary game, every game was well prepared by others over time. Original ideas don't grow on trees either.

To pick the gems of the past, see great development efforts conveniently overlooking the long time it took to get there and compare them to the slow process of today doesn't help a realistic evaluation of todays games either.


...and 17 of the top 20 selling videogames in 2003 were sequels.

Those are not Good Things.


I nver understood the complaints about sequels. A number behind the title doesn't make the game bad. The quality of the game is decisive, not the fact if a game is a sequel or not.

A good sequel is good, a bad sequel is bad. :) If a sequel gets innovative ideas, keeps the good elements of the prequel and expands on them, and gets rid of gameplay flaws, all is well in the innovation world. SMB 3 introduced new game ideas, a Castlevania 3 is one of the best Castlevanias, we all know the long list of fantastic sequels which make up the majority of the best console games ever produced; and a Gran Turismo 3 is unlike their predecessors not so shabby either. :)


How will the industry do with another two years of sequelitis?

It did very well with sequelitis in the last 16 years, I expect the same for the second half of this console generation which - like all second halfs - are characterised by a slow-down in sales. As a matter of fact, I was surprised how relatively well sales went in the last year.; and I'll will certainly buy a Gran Turismo 4 and a Metriod Prime 2. As a mtter of fact, these are the only two games I will purchase for the outrageous price of $50. :)

Look, at the heart of your often heard criticism is one, and one reason only. We feel uncomfortable with BIG BUSINESS aspects of the industry. We love Ralph Baer, respect Nolan Bushnell (often forgetting that he was a very savy business enetrepreneur), and we hate Ray Kassar. Ray Kassar is a necessity, today more so than ever, some disadvantages come with economic success, but they come with the turf.

Big business aspects are overall a good thing, even breed innovation as long as we have fierce competition. Granted, the environment for game development from the first step to the last step became more structured, more money is at stake, much more people are involved, and game companies are run by businessmen; and these are all good things for game quality and a healthy industry.

A lot of money is at stake, game companies have to balance profit interests and innovative game ideas, they have to calculate risks and play it safe at the same time. Ubi Soft fell on a soft cushion with their othet franchises despite the undeserved failure with Beyond Good And Evil. The receipe is diversification of your games so you don't stand on one leg, a much bigger problem for smaller developers/publishers than for the big fish.

Money doesn't rule over game quality today, game quality IS money in a very fierce market. You need innovative games in order to set yourself apart from the big crowd, otherwise you'll go under; and no game developer rejects an innovative smash hit like GTA which makes it financially sound for years to come AND gives it more freedom to experiment and take risks with unusual games and new franchises.

You can't turn the wheel of history back, the path back is blocked. Period; but it's not even desirable to go back. If I have a choice between the two guys in a garage who coulfd make a game in four months and a game project by Capcom which requires 50 people working for two years and millions of development costs, I take the latter anyday. The advantages oif the latter outweigh by far the advantages of the former.

...and yeah, I would love to see mags address topics like this more often and give it more space. GI went into the right direction, but didn';t go far enough. The rare breed of good game journalists, but even more so the young subsciber base of the mags are high obstacles. Still, I love to read game mags and don't share your cultural pessimism in this regard either.

I think i just broke even my record of lengthy posts. I apologize!! :) It just came over me, I couldn't help it...what are they saying in the Jerry Springer show???...just one thing let to another, and here I am sleeping with my sister, brother, and four cousins. I'm innocent, I just couldn't help it.

[lendelin]

I wish games would be taken as seriously as movies by the review elite, and I'm convinced someday they will; it's still some way to go.

I really don't see that happening for at least another 20 years or so, if ever. Gaming didn't really hit the mainstream in a big way until 1997 or so. Sure, the 2600 was in just about every house in the United States by the mid 80's, but people really did see it as a fad. They sat them in their closet next to their pet-rock as soon as the novelty wore off.

The reason gaming will probably never have the same type of review culture as movies is simple: A movie lasts only two to three hours. An average adventure game nowadays lasts about 20 hours. This is a massive difference and a major deterrent to engaging the masses. 60,000,000 people have already seen Spider-Man 2 because it only involves a 2 hour commitment of their lives. On the other hand, 60,000,000 people will NEVER commit 20 hours to one game. Heck, even a Harry Potter book only takes eight to 10 hours to complete.

For videogames to evolve into the same type of respected medium that literature and film has attained, the industry will need to parcel these epic games down to tight 5 or 10 hour chunks that the masses can enjoy in their entirety before losing interest. Hardcore gamers hate to hear the battle-cry of "shorter games," but the medium will only evolve if that happens.

The length of games today and their complexity is a very big problem indeed.

I'm very ambigous about this issue. On the one hand we demanded in the past more options, less linearity, more freedom for gamers, demanded to get 'more' (= playtime) for our money, and now even a videogame nut like me thinks that sometimes games are too lenghty and too complex becasue of overwhelming options. I evben wish sometimes a game had only ONE ending, and not four or five as rewards to play through it numerous times.

The result is that even younger gamers today enjoy the linear simplicity of the old classics as a refreshing game experience.

It's indeed a big challenge to tailor games towards gaming habits of different demographics of gamers. I'm sure the casual gamer enjoys shorter, intense games more than games which require a long committment. Even nuts like us prefer often to drive a couple of laps in GT3 for 30 minutes than to get into a past RPG which cannot played so easily for a short period of time; combining that with an over-saturation of game offerings today, it's really a complex problem.

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. Maybe that's one of the secrets of success of GTA, and it would also explain it's influnce
today on other games - after all, it's free-roaming explorartion structure is the most often copied gameplay element today.

It's really hard to tell if lenghth is the decisive factor to be taken seriously by a well established review elite, probably economic success and it's associated wide appeal is more important. After all, to read a novel takes more time than to read a couple of poems, and petry doesn't play a major part in literature reviews becasue it just doesn't sell well. Every author (EXTREME and RARE examples apply) lives from short stories and novels, poems despite their shortness don't put bread on the table. Accessibility and appeal are probaly very important, coupled with todays gaming habits the accepatance as a respective form of entertainment and art makes it very complex.

One thing is for sure, the development from a kids toy to something "more' respected is on the way, and there are lots of indicators. Another thing is also sure, it takes a long time, after all, just 15 years ago those little ridiculous games were just indeed regarded as a toy. It took movies and photography some time to be acknowledged as something more than a fad, and it will take games some time to become a respected medium.

As long as gamers grow up and become older, the games have to grow up, the mags, the reviewres, and slowly we'll get the Roger Everts, and the worst of G4tv.com will be a thing of the past.

[EnemyZero]

Yeah theres no doubt GameFan was and is my fav mag, i have every issue sitting on my shelf at home and i still flip through old issues, they did an amazing issue on NiGHTS when it came out. Wish GF was still around :/ now i only have my EGM....pffttt :(

[ManciGames]

I'm very ambigous about this issue. On the one hand we demanded in the past more options, less linearity, more freedom for gamers, demanded to get 'more' (= playtime) for our money, and now even a videogame nut like me thinks that sometimes games are too lenghty and too complex becasue of overwhelming options.

Heh. I know exactly what you mean. Could it be that your life situation has changed over the years? I know that when I was harping for more freedom, more options, etc. I was in High School or College. Flash forward to now, when I have family, work, and new hobbies and time becomes more of a deciding factor.



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.



It's really hard to tell if lenghth is the decisive factor to be taken seriously by a well established review elite, probably economic success and it's associated wide appeal is more important.

Economis succes may have something to do with it, but when you consider that the video game industry is raking in more than Hollywood at this point, you have to think something else is holding it back.



One thing is for sure, the development from a kids toy to something "more' respected is on the way, and there are lots of indicators. Another thing is also sure, it takes a long time, after all, just 15 years ago those little ridiculous games were just indeed regarded as a toy. It took movies and photography some time to be acknowledged as something more than a fad, and it will take games some time to become a respected medium.


I actually had an editorial on that very subject lined up for a future issue of MG... You don't know how right you are. After 25 years, v-games are still in their infancy. When movies were 25-years old, they were still doing silent films. :)

[Daniel Thomas]

Bill Kunkel is absolutely right to remind us of Arnie Katz and his invaluable contributions. He's pretty much solely responsible for creating the '90s zine scene, and he certainly deserves credit.

I remember reading his VG&CE column in 1990 (I think) in which he introduced the idea of a videogaming fanzine. The very idea just captivated me, as I was just getting into zines myself via some nearby Star Trek clubs (see, we all have embarassing skeletons in our closets). I sent Mr. Katz a short letter and was thrilled to see my name mentioned in a later column. It was a tremendous boost to my confidence, and inspired me to keep writing and creating.

I wound up publishing a number of zines over the next few years, and I'm still trying to get somewhere with my writing today. I don't even know if I'd be able to create a website if I didn't have that fanzine experience to fall back upon. For all this, I owe Arnie Katz my eternal gratitude and appreciation. And I know that every faned would feel the same.

[LaRésistance]

In France there was a mag named Player One that was considered the best French video games magazine. It lasted for more than five years (more than a hundred issues) and managed to stay partial when a lot of magazine had "sold out" to Sony.

When it died, even other magazines wrote that they were sad to see that Player One was no more.

It has been four years since the last issue of Player One and French gamers still talk about it.

[Dan Iacovelli]

most of the old school mags from the 80's toearly 90's were pretty good, the mags now aren't that great as they used to be.
On the subject of mr.Katz I think the fanzines editors (like me,russ, and joe)
owe a lot to Arnie becuase he used to give reviews of our fanzines in VG&CE
and computer gaming and whatever other mag he used to do it in.
if it wasn't for Arnie, The atari zone wouldn'r be active today. (my .02 cents)

[Aussie2B]

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've read through my issues from the late SNES days to the mid N64 lifespan countless times. I'm also currently going through all the old ones I missed which I recently purchased.

Of course, Nintendo can't be completely objective, but that's neither here nor there. If someone wants an objective magazine, you DON'T get a magazine devoted to a single console or company.

Yes, they highly praised their own games, but most of those games DESERVE the praise. Many of the best games on Nintendo consoles are also made by Nintendo; few would disagree with that.

They still were critical of many games, though. Nintendo Power did a fine job of steering people away from bad titles and towards good ones, regardless of the developers. Often times I thought they UNDERRATED my most liked games.

In the issue I just finished reading the other day, they gave a massive 21 page review to Castlevania 3, a Konami games, despite the fact that there were Nintendo games covered that month (and got significantly less coverage).

I will always defend old Nintendo Power. It's easily the best gaming magazine that I personally have read. The layout was great, the coverage was excellent, and the articles were very interesting. I'm a Nintendo fan, and it speaks to me as a Nintendo fan, as opposed to those all-consoles mags. I'm not a fanboy; I love plenty of non-Nintendo consoles and games too. I just know a good magazine when I read it (and I know when it's bad, which is when I stopped my subscription).

As for this "writers who play games" and "gamers who write" business, I think you can be equally skilled and passionate about both. The people who consider themselves "writers who play games" seem to put themselves up on pedestals and act as if they're better than other types of writers. I personally consider myself a gamer before a writer, but make no mistake, I'm very passionate about writing as well. I care much about my writing abilities, my grammar, my vocabulary, etc. They're not mutually exclusive; people can be knowledgable about both games and writing.

[kevincure]

Zach is dead-on about the lack of "writers who play games" in the industry. I wrote feature stories for Gaming Age 4 or 5 years ago, and tried to break out the "preview/review" mode. I wrote an article on the rise of "Extreme Sports" games, talking to Householder (the guy behind California Games, who is going to be at CGE this year, I believe), Scott Pease (Tony Hawk's first producer) and many others. Another one was about non-lifelike 3d shading. Fear Effect had just been released, and I wrote about the possibilities of rendering games in non-realistic ways (like cel-shading) with the new gen of consoles. While many of the ideas in the article were never realized (for instance, Shadow of Destiny would've been great if they'd rendered the 1800s level to look like a moving impressionist painting, right?), it was still lots of fun to research.

There are no good videogame magazines today. I read EGM solely for the reveiw scores. Early Next Generation (and Edge today) are/were fantastic.

The most interesting game journalism I read today is online: gamegirladvance used to be quite good, though it's relatively sparse today. 1-up fanzine, which was sold at CGE last year, is great, but hasn't been published in over a year. Video-fenky, buzzcut, ludology.org, Game Critics and grand text auto are all worth an occasional read as well.

Someone asked when we'll see an Ebert of game journalism. It won't happen until a magazine publisher recruits some real journalists and puts out a magazine for adults. Here's how you'll know it: Less than 10% of the magazine will be devoted to previews.

[ManciGames]

Someone asked when we'll see an Ebert of game journalism. It won't happen until a magazine publisher recruits some real journalists and puts out a magazine for adults. Here's how you'll know it: Less than 10% of the magazine will be devoted to previews.

I'm just not sure that an adult oriented mag will ever work. Next Gen catered to an older audience and they are now kaput. Play is also trying to cater to an older audience, but the readership just is not in the same league as an EGM...

I think most adults loose interest in games as they grow older. I thought for sure that our generation (Gen X) would be the first to break that trend, but I don't see that happening. As the years go by, the percentage of my friends still gaming goes down more and more.

I'm also not sure how reviews that break the mold of the cookie-cutter stuff we have been force-fed for years would ever work with the adult crowd who does still read gaming mags.

The style we used for MG was more of a literary one. It was less focused on the technical aspects of the game and more focused on how it felt to actually play it. It was supposed to read more like a conversation with a friend, rather than reading like a typical game review. The readership really bought into the idea and the vast majority of the people dug it...but these are the hardcore we are talking about here. I'm not so sure that kind of style would ever work in a mainstream magazine like EGM. It would be too confusing for most readers. So, the question remains: what does a successful adult-oriented gaming mag look like? Will we ever find out?

[zmweasel]

I will always defend old Nintendo Power. It's easily the best gaming magazine that I personally have read.

You need to read "Game Over" by David Sheff to fully understand that Nintendo Power was, is, and always will be a marketing tool. A very well-done marketing tool, no question, but still. It's like saying your favorite magazine is The Sharper Image catalog.


As for this "writers who play games" and "gamers who write" business, I think you can be equally skilled and passionate about both.

In 15 years, I've met a handful of game journos who are both great writers AND passionate gamers, Bill Kunkel being the one I most admire. The older I get, the more I appreciate his work.

Almost every web "journo" is a gamer-who-writes, for better and (mostly) for worse. David Smith of 1Up.com is a great writer and a passionate gamer, but he's a strange exception--a Doogie Howser who attended college while still a teen and discovered video games after developing his keen intellect. He demonstrates many tendencies of a gamer-who-writes, particularly a lack of social graces, but he makes up for it with sheer frightening brainpower.

-- Z.

[ManciGames]

Almost every web "journo" is a gamer-who-writes, for better and (mostly) for worse. David Smith of 1Up.com is a great writer and a passionate gamer, but he's a strange exception--a Doogie Howser who attended college while still a teen and discovered video games after developing his keen intellect. He demonstrates many tendencies of a gamer-who-writes, particularly a lack of social graces, but he makes up for it with sheer frightening brainpower.
-- Z.

There are some other really good writers here: www.insertcredit.com

I don't recognize any of these names, but I really like their respective styles.

[Aussie2B]

Of course it's a marketing tool, but does that mean it's not worth reading? Or that it's in any worse than any other magazines? They're ALL marketing tools. I would rather read old Nintendo Power issues over Game Informer, GamePro, and other "objective" crap any day, and I would MUCH rather read a magazine that is subtle about its advertising rather than reading one page about games and then flipping through 10 pages of literal advertisements after it.

Every magazine is designed to sell games, period. Magazines that cover all consoles sell games with the advertisements, and then their advertisers pay them for it. Nintendo Power (in the days before their advertisements) used the game coverage itself to promote games. They didn't say "Go out and buy this game!". They just wrote their opinions on it, taught the reader about the game, and offered coverage to help them get through it. That is a more intelligent and less obtrusive way to sell games. If I have the game, I get help with it. If I'm not interested in the game, the info can help me be more confident in that view or perhaps change my mind. And if I do have interest in the game, it will give me all the information I need to make sure that the game is right for me. Advertisements do NONE of that. All they do is say "BUY IT" without giving me any reason why. The advertisers don't care if they're selling a horrible product, but if it's bad, Nintendo Power DOES say so. And if Nintendo Power steers people away from a title, it really doesn't matter to them, as opposed to all-console mags that have to fear their advertisers leaving them if they say anything negative (and you know how these publishers pressure the writers). Does every all-console mag writer believe that all the big-name titles are also the best games? If the writer is a true gamer, they won't believe that, but they'll be pressured to praise and rate the big-name titles the best because the big publishers have the most money to throw around.

[ManciGames]

Of course it's a marketing tool, but does that mean it's not worth reading?

I picked up a free sub to Nintendo Power about a year and a half ago. I hadn't seen an issue of it since the early 90's. I've gotta say, I was very impressed with the objectivity of the mag. Their reviews pretty much lined up with other mags. In some cases, they even gave worse ratings than what I had been seeing in the other publications.

On the other hand, it's still written like it's a promotional tool more than a real mag. But, like you said...who care's, just as long as it's interesting.

[ManciGames]

Of course it's a marketing tool, but does that mean it's not worth reading?

I picked up a free sub to Nintendo Power about a year and a half ago. I hadn't seen an issue of it since the early 90's. I've gotta say, I was very impressed with the objectivity of the mag. Their reviews pretty much lined up with other mags. In some cases, they even gave worse ratings than what I had been seeing in the other publications.

On the other hand, it's still written like it's a promotional tool more than a real mag. But, like you said...who care's, just as long as it's interesting.

[zmweasel]

Of course it's a marketing tool, but does that mean it's not worth reading? Or that it's in any worse than any other magazines? They're ALL marketing tools. I would rather read old Nintendo Power issues over Game Informer, GamePro, and other "objective" crap any day, and I would MUCH rather read a magazine that is subtle about its advertising rather than reading one page about games and then flipping through 10 pages of literal advertisements after it.

I didn't say Nintendo Power isn't worth reading. But there is absolutely NOTHING "subtle" about Nintendo Power. The magazine is one giant advertisement for Nintendo, paid for by Nintendo. Here are some choice quotes from "Game Over," which anyone who considers himself an "expert" on Nintendo or videogame history should read forwards, backwards, and upside-down:

"By early 1988, there were over 1 million [Nintendo] Fan Club members, and this led to [Minoru] Arakawa's decision to start Nintendo Power magazine. In Japan, Nintendo had allowed other companies to make fortunes from magazines devoted to the Famicom. In America, with its long list of potential subscribers, Nintendo would keep the money and the control itself."

"Power had what Peter Main called an 'ability to pre-sell product.' It was as if Universal Studios owned Premiere magazine and other print media devoted to movies. Universal could then decide, well in advance, to trumpet a particular coming movie, building anticipation. As the movie neared completion, it could make grander and grander announcements. Just as the film was to hit the theaters, it could announce that it was the most incredible movie ever made, and that anyone who didn't see it immediately was missing the event of the season. The publications would then tell readers how much everyone loved the movie and push any holdouts to see it, all the while creating enthusiasm for the next Universal movie."

There's no question that videogame publishers see videogame magazines as an essential part of any advertising blitz, and that videogame magazines do their part to drum up the hype in the form of previews. Also, Game Informer certainly isn't an objective publication, seeing as it's the house organ of a videogame retailer. But why do you put "objective" in quotes when speaking of GamePro?

Also, why do you use the ridiculous and totally false ratio of one editorial page to ten of advertising? You must be thinking of Vanity Fair. The "worst" ratio I've ever seen in a videogame magazine is 1:1, and more ads means more editorial. Ads are how all independent videogame magazines (which Nintendo Power most certainly isn't) survive.


Every magazine is designed to sell games, period.

Nintendo Power is "designed" to sell the Nintendo brand. Independent videogame magazines are meant to inform their readers. Certain websites are certainly crossing the line with reviews that link to websites where you can purchase the game being reviewed, but that's what independent videogame websites have to do in order to survive.


Magazines that cover all consoles sell games with the advertisements, and then their advertisers pay them for it.

What the hell are you talking about?


Nintendo Power (in the days before their advertisements) used the game coverage itself to promote games. They didn't say "Go out and buy this game!". They just wrote their opinions on it, taught the reader about the game, and offered coverage to help them get through it. That is a more intelligent and less obtrusive way to sell games.

See the above quote from "Game Over." Nintendo Power was created to control coverage of Nintendo and SELL NINTENDO GAMES, not to "teach" its preteen readers.


And if Nintendo Power steers people away from a title, it really doesn't matter to them, as opposed to all-console mags that have to fear their advertisers leaving them if they say anything negative (and you know how these publishers pressure the writers). Does every all-console mag writer believe that all the big-name titles are also the best games? If the writer is a true gamer, they won't believe that, but they'll be pressured to praise and rate the big-name titles the best because the big publishers have the most money to throw around.

I can't think of an incident in the past five years where an advertiser has threatened to pull ads over a negative review. Those dark days are, thankfully, gone for good.

I also can't think of an incident in the past five years where a journo has been pressured to give positive coverage to a big-name title.

Have you ever actually worked in the game-journo biz, or are you just forming opinions based on hearsay and rumor?

-- Z.

[SoulBlazer]

Are you sure about adult gamers? I'm 28 and have been gaming for over twenty years now, and God willing, I'll keep gaming till the day I die, although I hope we get some real VR games by then. :) I keep reading research from companies saying that half of all game players for both PC and console games are 25 or older.

And I also agree with Aussie about Nintendo Power. I had subscriptions of every issue, from the first one, until mid 1998. The magazine was top notch and one I always wanted to read. They had nice coverage and really good help for many games, a letter section, some nice comics, game ratings, and free strategy guides now and then. I thought their scores were objective and they did'nt mind bashing bad games. Of course they were slanted to Nintendo systems, but they gave plenty of bad scores for Nintendo licneced games.

Then in mid 1998 with the N64 not doing as well and Sony having a commanding lead of the game market it changed. More garbage, more ads, more previews, less stuff I wanted from a game/hint magazine. So I stopped ordering new ones.

Last year I picked up another one year subscription to Nintendo Power to get the Zelda collection disc. I was disturbed to read several issues and find out it's gotten worse. They still have helpfull coverage on some games, but it's like they realize that the Internet now does a lot of the stuff they used to do 10 years ago and said 'why bother'?

[ManciGames]

Are you sure about adult gamers? I'm 28 and have been gaming for over twenty years now, and God willing, I'll keep gaming till the day I die, although I hope we get some real VR games by then. :) I keep reading research from companies saying that half of all game players for both PC and console games are 25 or older.


28 here also. And just like you, I'll be gaming till I'm 6 feet under. :)

Now, you have to remember that the research you are referring to includes the millions of people who only buy Madden or some other sports game each year. So, while I agree that the percentage of adult gamers is much higher than it was 10 years ago, I have to wonder how many of those people would sit down and play Xenosaga from start to finish. And then of those, how many would actually subscribe to a gaming mag?

I'd be curious to see some of the detail behind those stats. Stuff like "Average number of hours played per week," and a breakdown of the genres these adult gamers are interested in. I'm guessing that it would turn out something like this: Sports - 70%, GTA - 20%, Everything else - 10%. Those aren't the kind of people who are going to sub to an adult-oriented gaming mag.

Okay, maybe that's an exaggeration, but I'd still like to see some stats. Anybody have 'em?

[zmweasel]

Are you sure about adult gamers? I'm 28 and have been gaming for over twenty years now, and God willing, I'll keep gaming till the day I die, although I hope we get some real VR games by then. :) I keep reading research from companies saying that half of all game players for both PC and console games are 25 or older.

You must be referring to those ESA studies in which they count old ladies who play online hearts and backgammon. (A recent issue of Wired discussed the deceptively huge market of grayhair "gamers.")

Next Generation was the closest thing to an adults-only video game magazine we've ever had, but when its British editors left for greener pastures, its American replacements immediately dumbed it down. (One of those replacements is now at G4, which explains much about that network in my mind.)

-- Z.

[zmweasel]

The style we used for MG was more of a literary one. It was less focused on the technical aspects of the game and more focused on how it felt to actually play it. It was supposed to read more like a conversation with a friend, rather than reading like a typical game review. The readership really bought into the idea and the vast majority of the people dug it...but these are the hardcore we are talking about here. I'm not so sure that kind of style would ever work in a mainstream magazine like EGM. It would be too confusing for most readers. So, the question remains: what does a successful adult-oriented gaming mag look like? Will we ever find out?

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.

[Cav]

"First-person reviews should NEVER be attempted by gamers-who-write."


Amen to this. 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.

-Cav