Mags: Game Informer, GamePro, & Play - Niche game coverage & Biases?

[dhowerter]

Hi all :-)

I'd really like to know, for these 3 US print magazines:
Game Informer, GamePro, and Play,

any information you could provide for EACH of the 3 mags: (I'm probably going to subscribe to one of them)



1. How is each magazine's NICHE game coverage?
(that is, coverage / reviews / previews / general focus, etc. on games that would NOT be considered mainstream - for example Zack and Wiki on Wii or Senko no Ronde on 360 or Legacy of Ys on DS)

2. Any large biases for each magazine? (towards / away from certain systems or towards / away from certain genres?)

3. Which magazine, in your opinion, simply gives the most FAIR reviews (carefully considering the pros and cons) of all game types overall? (and especially niche games)

4. Which, in your opinion, is simply the most fun to read?

5. Any comments you'd care to add about your favorite mag (or least favorite mag) of the 3 listed are welcome



Just trying to get a sense of each magazine (presumably from people who have been reading them for a while)


EDIT:
Try to keep your comments somewhat positive, if possible ^_^ (universal dislike of a mag isn't very informative)

Thanks! :-)

.

[chicnstu]

I'll help talk about Game Informer, I was a subscriber for 6 years. I haven't ever subscribed to the others so the post will be just about Game Informer.

1. How is each magazine's NICHE game coverage?
(that is, coverage / reviews / previews / general focus, etc. on games that would NOT be considered mainstream - for example Zack and Wiki on Wii or Senko no Ronde on 360 or Legacy of Ys on DS)

They seem to make a preview page on almost every game anyone knows about. There are a few games I noticed during my time with GI that they never covered. Also, they review almost everything also. The only games they don't review (usually) are things like Barbie's Horse Adventure.

2. Any large biases for each magazine? (towards / away from certain systems or towards / away from certain genres?)

No major bias, but they do seem to be hiding some Wii hate but it's not very bad.

3. Which magazine, in your opinion, simply gives the most FAIR reviews (carefully considering the pros and cons) of all game types overall? (and especially niche games)

GI seems very fair in their reviews, they have a lot of reviewers. One usually reviews the RPGs, one-three usually review the sports games, etc. Their reviews are great, it amazes me the little details they point out about each game and how much they fit on one page.

Sometimes they'll give certain games a higher rating than another game I felt technically/logically deserved the same or a higher score. For example, Bioshock received a 10 by the main reviewer and Mario Galaxy received a 9.75 (it didn't get a 10 because they couldn't adjust a camera that never needs to be adjusted). Mass Effect received a 9.75 also. Yeah, 9.75 for MG is almost 10 but something didn't feel right about Mario Galaxy's score. I have a few reasons why I think Mario Galaxy is a technically better game than Bioshock and Mass Effect but maybe I should keep them to myself to keep the topic on-topic

4. Which, in your opinion, is simply the most fun to read?

GI is a lot of fun IMO. Every page is packed with something to read.

5. Any comments you'd care to add about your favorite mag (or least favorite mag) of the 3 listed are welcome

Game Informer has changed a lot since I first subscribed, but maybe most gamers their age have. When I first subscribed, EGM was the most popular (I think, at least it was at my school back then) and the GI reviewers seemed to LOVE (not just like or respect) all genres. This lasted probably until around 2008. XBox 360 seems to have been a major part in their change, it was the biggest talk and had the most things (mostly shooters obviously) shown for it for a few years so I understand, it's the most popular system with the most good games.

Game Informer seems to have some kind of slightly hidden disgusted attitude towards Wii (but I guess at least they aren't showing Nintendo hate as much as EGM did during the GC era). Because of the emails they get, GI has to tell their readers often that they don't hate Nintendo. In one of the introductions last year Andy said that they point out Nintendo's mistakes because they love Nintendo, maybe that's true but the overall feel of many of the issues last year didn't just feel like they were pointing out mistakes. They did have an issue last year that had a big feature about the games that were coming out for Wii but it felt like they were doing that just to stop the hate emails.

To me it feels like many of the GI reviewers are getting obsessed with games where you shoot stuff (I guess like many people). GI is the #1 magazine, and you know what popularity does to things. The Nintendo comments aren't nearly as bad as some of the things I saw in EGM in 2003-2004.

Do I recommend you subscribe to GI? Yes, definitely. They have lots of previews/reviews in every issue and have an exclusive first look (with lots of information and screenshots) at a new game each issue. They are often the first to reveal/announce a new game.

[The 1 2 P]

Play gives the worst reviews of the three. They seem to think every game that comes out is a 9 or a 10, even showelware. GamePro is definitely biased towards Sony but they atleast try to act like they care about the other two systems from time to time. Game Informer is the best all around read gaming wise but Play covers more mediums(anime, movies, comics, etc). If I had to pick out of the three I'd go with Game Informer. As it stands now I have a subscription to all three and have for atleast five years each.

[roushimsx]

The only gaming magazines I tend to read anymore are PC Gamer (and have been since like 1994!) and Game Informer (everything else I liked has since died). They both have their own biases but I find both fairly entertaining to read for their previews, especially PC Gamer since they'll more openly point out the potential pitfalls of a game. GI tends to have a lot of brief preview bits, which sometimes is handy for spotting a potential game to keep an eye on, but their full page ones are little more than masturbatory screenshot collages. Still, awesome bathroom material.

I don't generally let the reviews get under my skin. Everyone fucks a review up at some point and there'll always be a game for which there's no target audience at the magazine. Games like Senko no Ronde are pretty damn niche, even when it comes to niche games, so it's understandable at GI shit all over it and missed the point. Hell, most of the people I've talked to about it had the same opinion about it.

Screw Legacy of Ys on DS. Atlus didn't even bother fixing any of the problems that fans had been complaining about since the games came out in Japan (namely, the control). Meh.

[TonyTheTiger]

Missed what point? Based on that review, it sounds like the game has fundamental control problems. Being "niche" is no excuse for bad mechanics. I haven't played it but rarely is a game rated that low by any publication if there isn't some glaring flaw.

I think GI is probably the best you'll do with any print magazine but, in the end, unless you like the publication for reasons beyond just the "news" part of it there's no reason to subscribe. You can theoretically get everything the magazine offers from the net so you'll have to find something to like from the actual editors and their particular coverage. I've been subscribing to GI since January 1995 so I can say they're certainly an eclectic bunch.

[roushimsx]

Missed what point? Based on that review, it sounds like the game has fundamental control problems. Being "niche" is no excuse for bad mechanics. I haven't played it but rarely is a game rated that low by any publication if there isn't some glaring flaw.

Why retype what's already been written about on HG101?!?!?

It's not the first time that they didn't "get" a game and I'm sure it won't be the last. Some reviewers got it and dug it, others didn't. Metacritic records all.

[j_factor]

GI can be very biased. Back in the day, they seemed pretty anti-Dreamcast. I still remember the PS2 launch issue; the review scores seemed overinflated and the feature article gushed to a ridiculous extent. "It's your new best friend," they proclaimed.

GamePro is just crap, and not even worth a second look.

Play has a gorgeous layout, and they deserve props for giving press to under-appreciated games, but their reviews are extremely uncritical, and never to be trusted.

[TonyTheTiger]

Why retype what's already been written about on HG101?!?!?

It's not the first time that they didn't "get" a game and I'm sure it won't be the last. Some reviewers got it and dug it, others didn't. Metacritic records all.

Senko no Ronde is a very different fighting game when compared to the standards set by Capcom's Street Fighter II several years ago, and since it's rather unique, an explanation of the game system is needed in order to not become easily frustrated with it.

See, this is where I agree with GI. The review you posted says this as if it's a positive while I think it's traditionally a design flaw if players need instructions. Unique is good but unintuitive is not.

But, like I said, I haven't played the game.