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

[j_factor]

You can't expect any publication with limited space to review every title under the sun so there will be some cuts. Plus you have so many hours in the day and I'm sure it's hard to even play enough of a game to be able to review it properly. They're also light on the PSP coverage and PC coverage. I don't think they've reviewed some of the more "niche" 360 games and yet they have reviewed some niche Wii games like Blast Works and Castle of Shikigami III. It isn't fair to go through the magazine and count the 360 reviews, the PS3 reviews, and the Wii reviews and then say "bias" when the numbers aren't even.

Why not? There are more Wii games than 360 games and more Wii owners than 360 owners, so if it has fewer games covered, to me that indicates a tilt in the other direction. I don't remember any multi-format mags giving Xbox more coverage than PS2, or N64 more coverage than Playstation (although in that case, N64 didn't have enough games to fill the space ). And it's not just the reviews, but also the previews, the whole mag in general.

The GI "quickies" were created to address the resource problem but even that would get the magazine slammed if they did a "quickie" of a game that's actually good. For that reason the quickie reviews are there mostly for the comedic effect of listing a series of games that get 3.5 or something. It's not a perfect solution.

Then the magazine needs to be larger. A multiformat mag needs to be bigger than the system-specific mags (that was always the case in the past), but GI is roughly the same size as the Nintendo, Playstation, and Xbox magazines. Weak.

I don't think you could go through the magazine and easily select 360/PS3/DS games to remove and replace with Wii coverage.

Not really the point, but I'll bite. Just looking at the latest issue... Reviews: who cares about Race Pro, Stoked, or Lord of the Rings Conquest? Previews: Do we really need previews of yearly sports games? Those can be cut.

[Chainsaw_Charlie]

I prefer GI over the other 2 but I am becoming somewhat jaded now that the ps2 is nearly finished, I do have some love for the 360 but I love the DS

[TonyTheTiger]

Why not? There are more Wii games than 360 games and more Wii owners than 360 owners, so if it has fewer games covered, to me that indicates a tilt in the other direction. I don't remember any multi-format mags giving Xbox more coverage than PS2, or N64 more coverage than Playstation (although in that case, N64 didn't have enough games to fill the space ). And it's not just the reviews, but also the previews, the whole mag in general.

I think the problem with the analogy to the PS2/Xbox or PSX/N64 situation is that the Wii is a different monster. Yes, it does have a giant library but a surprisingly large percentage of it is generic nonsense. It would be an equal waste of space to review more shovelware titles only to say "yeah, it sucks as much as you thought it would." Not to mention that the Wii, while in many more homes, has a surprisingly low software attachment rate. So even if there are more Wii owners, it's entirely possible they're less interested in what's out there when compared to the average 360/PS3/DS owner. I'm not certain if that's true or not but I wouldn't be surprised.

Then the magazine needs to be larger. A multiformat mag needs to be bigger than the system-specific mags (that was always the case in the past), but GI is roughly the same size as the Nintendo, Playstation, and Xbox magazines. Weak.

That's asking a lot. You must know that print magazines are on their deathbed. These issues are given away for practically nothing for the sole purpose of being able to say "yeah, we have X million readers" to advertisers. The only reason they're still in business is because they sell advertising space. I'd venture a guess that if the issues did grow most of that space would be filled with ads.

Not really the point, but I'll bite. Just looking at the latest issue... Reviews: who cares about Race Pro, Stoked, or Lord of the Rings Conquest? Previews: Do we really need previews of yearly sports games? Those can be cut.

I don't know about the first two but are you seriously suggesting that they don't review a Lord of the Rings game? Good or bad, that's pretty high profile. And the yearly sports titles are pretty significant themselves. Besides, they appear on the Wii, too. And I think it really is the point because aside from adding more pages (not so easy) or shrinking down the length of reviews (probably a bad idea) the only way to add more is at the expense of something else. It's sort of a zero sum game here.

[j_factor]

I think the problem with the analogy to the PS2/Xbox or PSX/N64 situation is that the Wii is a different monster. Yes, it does have a giant library but a surprisingly large percentage of it is generic nonsense. It would be an equal waste of space to review more shovelware titles only to say "yeah, it sucks as much as you thought it would."

Moot point. I specifically mentioned games that were not generic nonsense. And it's not as though PSX and PS2 didn't have hundreds of shit games.

Not to mention that the Wii, while in many more homes, has a surprisingly low software attachment rate. So even if there are more Wii owners, it's entirely possible they're less interested in what's out there when compared to the average 360/PS3/DS owner. I'm not certain if that's true or not but I wouldn't be surprised.

Last time I saw the attach rates, the Wii's wasn't that much less than the 360's, and was 0.1 above the PS3. But that was quite some time ago, I don't know what they are now. Link?

That's asking a lot. You must know that print magazines are on their deathbed. These issues are given away for practically nothing for the sole purpose of being able to say "yeah, we have X million readers" to advertisers. The only reason they're still in business is because they sell advertising space. I'd venture a guess that if the issues did grow most of that space would be filled with ads.

Fine by me. If they have to double the ads to increase content by 50%, it's still worth it IMO. Ads don't bother me one bit.

I don't know about the first two but are you seriously suggesting that they don't review a Lord of the Rings game? Good or bad, that's pretty high profile.

And a new Tales game isn't high profile? House of the Dead is insignificant?

And the yearly sports titles are pretty significant themselves.

They should still be reviewed, but previewed? Previewing a yearly baseball game to talk about the pitching system being tweaked is a waste of space. Most people who buy yearly sports games don't care about previewing them, they'll just read the review when it comes out.

Besides, they appear on the Wii, too. And I think it really is the point because aside from adding more pages (not so easy) or shrinking down the length of reviews (probably a bad idea) the only way to add more is at the expense of something else. It's sort of a zero sum game here.

Getting way off track here. The point is, GI's coverage of the Wii is disproportional to the rest of its coverage, and not in the Wii's favor. Ergo, they are biased against the Wii. Saying the 360 has better games or whatever, doesn't make it less true.

[darkslime]

Game Informer is owned by gamestop. They are biased towards whatever gamestop wants to sell well.

Gamepro's target audience is 12 year olds.

Play is made by a bunch of elitist assholes and has terrible reviews.

[swlovinist]

I prefer GI as my favorite of the three. Like others have said, they do try to cover everything and and give a good current snapshot of the game market. Their previews are informative, and they sometimes have great interviews with people in the field. More importanly, I find myself looking at the mag several times a month, and for me...that makes it worth subscribing to.

Gamepro has gone through some changes, and overall I feel it not a bad magazine. It has been around forever, so kudos to the mag to 1. Survive 2. Change with the times. I feel that the magazine has worked on its content and previews, making it a more overall complete magazine. I still dont prefer their reviews, but they have made them more through at least.

As for the Wartech revew, I have to defend one thing about why they might have rated it low....the game came out at full price of $59.99. Niche or not, as an owner of the game...there just is not enough there to warrant that price tag.

[Trebuken]

I checked out an issue of GamesTM at Microcenter today. Looks like a fantastic magazine. Alot more content than any of the American zines (at least the issue I picked up).

It was of course $9.99, being from overseas, but it might just be worth it. Retrogamer is running at $11.99 and is a tough buy for me at that price....

[Wraith Storm]

Game Informer -
This magazine has always been packed with info. I like all the extra stuff as well (The monthly calendar, The trivia quiz, the small retro reviews.) But the entire magazine just doesn't seem to have a unique identity. It's too corporate. Its written by a bunch of seemingly faceless people. They could replace over HALF of the staff by next months issue and it would still be the exact same magazine. I would never know unless they wrote an article about it. So while it's a solid magazine, I cant identify with any of the writers or reviewers and in turn it just doesn't interest me that much, although I do appreciate it for what it is.

Game Pro -
I have HATED game pro for over 15 years and how they still remain is beyond me and it pisses me off beyond belief!!! I haven't read the mag in a while but I ALWAYS thought that their reviews were horrible. Reviews should at least be written by someone who understands the genera they are playing and this never seemed the case in Game Pro.

Play -
I LOVED Game Players back in the day. It was, IMO, the best gaming mag ever written. GameFan came close however, and the fact that Play has Dave Halverson from GameFan probably contributes to my love of the mag.

Play is the only game mag that has carved itself an identity. The writers put so much passion into their reviews, interviews and articles that I fell like I personally know each one. I can read a review or an article and depending on the enthusiasm and style of writing I can usually guess exactly who wrote the article rather it be Dave, Heather, Greg etc. That's NOT something that's easy to accomplish.

To me, it doesn't have a corporate feel. I feels like it's written by gamers... Passionate and opinionated gamers. Some people complain about the scores because they rated every other game a 9 or 10. But regardless of the number that was attached I usually found their reviews to be spot on and understood why they gave it the score they did. And if you followed the mag you would see that they did away with scores and now have their reviews with no number attached. Just a little summary box called "Parting Shot" that finishes off the article.

They give lesser known games solid coverage, I love their format/layout, and all the extra stuff like the small anime/manga/DVD reviews in the back. They aren't perfect however and some things like the letters section piss me off. I always love reading the letters section in gaming mags but they hardly ever print any letters and when they do they never respond to them. I hate that. There are some other little quibbles that I have but the bulk of the mag feels like it was written just for me and for that I couldn't be any happier!

[Sudo]

Gamepro is and has always been shit. I've never been a big fan of Game Informer either, since they rely on Gamestop's ownership to get their exclusive coverage. The magazine used to be super thin as well, back when I actually had a subscription about 9 years ago. From what I've seen of it when I venture to my local Gamestop, it's not much better now. Play has been generous with scores in the past, but it just feels like a quality, well-written publication. You can tell that the writers actually enjoy games.

[TonyTheTiger]

snip

You're missing the point entirely. I won't continue the line by line quote chain because it seems, like the game of telephone, things get distorted and original meanings get lost.

The space issue can't be resolved by just adding pages. You completely misunderstood what I was saying. If the magazine grew, it would probably only increase due to advertising. Reviews and previews don't just pop up out of thin air. I doubt there are enough hours in the day to do a spread on every game under the sun.

Let's examine the most recent GI, issue 191.

Previews:
Resident Evil 5 (PS3/360) 54-55
GTA: Lost and Damned (360) 56-57
Brutal Legend (PS3/360) 58-59
I Am Alive (PS3/360) 60
Prototype (PS3/360/PC) 62
Arc Rise Fantasia (Wii) 64
Wanted: Weapons of Fate (PS3/360/PC) 66
Watchmen (PS3/360) 67
H.A.W.X. (PS3/360) 67
Legends of Wrestlemania (PS3/360) 68
UFC 2009 Undisputed (PS3/360) 69
Empire: Total War (PC) 70
Henry Hatsworth in the Puzzling Adventure (DS) 71
Valkerie Profile: Covenant of the Plume (DS) 71
Klonoa (Wii) 72
Rhythm Heaven (DS) 73
New Play Control Pikmin (Wii) 73
MLB 09: The Show (PS2/PSP/PS3) 74
Major League Baseball 2k9 (PS2/PSP/PS3/360/Wii) 75
Champions Online (PC) 76-77
Phantasy Star 0 (DS) 78
Guitar Hero: Modern Hits (DS) 78
Lux-Pain (DS) 78
Mario and Luigi RPG 3 (DS) 79
Mini Ninjas (PS3/360/Wii/DS/PC) 79
Boing! Docomodake (DS) 79
TMNT: Smash Up (Wii) 79

Reviews:
Street Fighter IV (PS3/360) 82
F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin (PS3/360/PC) 83
Afro Samurai (PS3/360) 84
The Lord of the Rings: Conquest (PS3/360) 85
Burnout Paradise: The Ultimate Box (PS3/360) 85
Killzone 2 (PS3) 86
Marble Saga: Kororinpa (Wii) 87
Deadly Creatures (Wii) 87
Halo Wars (360) 88
Stoked (360) 89
Race Pro (360) 89
Star Ocean: The Last Hope (360) 90
Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II (PC) 91
Drakensang: The Dark Eye (PC) 92
LocoRoco 2 (PSP) 94
Dragon Quest V: Hand of the Heavenly Bride (DS) 94
TrackMania DS (DS) 95
Blue Dragon Plus (DS) 95
Legacy of Ys: Books I & II (DS) 95
My World, My Way (DS) 95


I want to point a few things out. Notice that there are only 36 pages worth of actual game coverage in an issue that's 104 pages long. That's a very tight space. So, as you can see, time and space matter a lot.

30 Exclusives:
5 Exclusive 360
1 Exclusive PS3
4 Exclusive PC
6 Exclusive Wii
13 Exclusive DS
1 Exclusive PSP

17 Cross Platform:
11 PS3/360
3 PS3/360/PC
1 PS2/PSP/PS3
1 PS2/PSP/PS3/360/Wii
1 PS3/360/Wii/DS/PC

So the breakdown is this:
360: 21
PS3: 18
DS: 14
Wii: 8
PC: 8
PSP: 3
PS2: 2

If you look at it with these numbers, of course it appears there's a bias against the Wii. But the numbers are actually pretty deceptive and I'll tell you why:

1) If you look at the non-cross platform games, it appears that GI has a major hard on for the DS. And the Wii is getting more exclusive coverage, as well.

This tells me that the reason the 360 and PS3 get so much more coverage than the Wii has to do with the logistics of multiplatform games. You reach a larger audience covering multiplatform games. You cover more of your bases. It just so happens that in this generation, the Wii does not feed on the multiplatform titles as much for obvious reasons. So if an editor is going to chose how to spend an article talking about a game, he's going to lean toward an article that will appeal to the largest percentage of readers: namely, cross-platform titles.

2) Because of the cross-platform nature of certain games, it's not entirely productive to ask not "how much coverage do Wii games get?" A better question is "Of all the coverage in the magazine, what percentage is the Wii a part of?"

This is the breakdown:
360: 44.7%
PS3: 38%
DS: 29.9%
Wii: 17%
PC: 17%
PSP: 6%
PS2: 4%

This does show the 360 and PS3 dominating. But notice that most of this domination comes from multiplatform games. The Wii, and especially the DS, had more exclusive coverage. So, again, the logistics of multiplatform games is driving the numbers rather than some phantom bias.

3) You wanted a link? Here's one from a few months ago:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...110601561.html

It shows this as the present software attachment rate:

5.2 - Xbox 360
4.4 - PlayStation 3
3.1 - Wii

http://www.product-reviews.net/2008/...d-per-console/

This article, however, places the 360's attachment rate as high as 7.

Notice how in the article, the PS3's attachment rate soared while the Wii has been rather sluggish by comparison. So, the obvious conclusion is that even if the Wii is in more homes, it's a better business decision to spend a page talking about the latest cross-platform 360/PS3 game than that exclusive Wii title. That's not bias. It's business.

4) You can even see the effects of all of this in the long run. On page 97 of the current issue they show a list of reviewed games. The PS3 and 360 lists (65 and 77 respectively) are longer than the Wii's (36) but a vastly larger percentage of the PS3 and 360 coverage is for the exact same game.


Conclusion:
The take away is that you can complain about one off games like Tales of Symphonia or House of the Dead but the numbers are telling a different tale than one of bias. The Wii might be in more homes but not only does it not have the benefit of cross-platform coverage (two birds with one stone) but it also has a pathetically small software attachment rate suggesting that readers would be more interested in other things. Why spend a page talking about a Wii game instead of a 360 game when Wii owners seem less likely to buy that Wii game than 360 owners would be to buy the 360 game? It's just the business of using the numbers to determine how you'll maximize the use of limited space.

The only concession I can make is that there are a few DS games they probably wasted space for. But, though I don't have a link, we all know the DS is by far and away the king and I think has an attachment rate that rivals the 360's. So that could be the reason why there is a lot of exclusive DS coverage. And, obviously, there isn't going to be much cross-platform coverage since there isn't much that is cross-platform. But, honestly, they probably wasted space on a Wii game here, too. Do we really need a spread on the New Motion Control Pikmin just so they can tell us "yeah, it's the same"?

Wow, that was long and took more time than I intended to spend on it. And it also made me come off like a giant geek and a half. I'm never doing this again.

[j_factor]

Notice how in the article, the PS3's attachment rate soared while the Wii has been rather sluggish by comparison. So, the obvious conclusion is that even if the Wii is in more homes, it's a better business decision to spend a page talking about the latest cross-platform 360/PS3 game than that exclusive Wii title. That's not bias. It's business.

Apparently you have your own definition of the word "bias" that is alien to me. Bias and business are not mutually exclusive. If it's a better business decision to be biased in a certain way, then that's the reason they're biased -- it doesn't mean they aren't biased.

[TonyTheTiger]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bias

"a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."

Look at the synonyms:

"predisposition, preconception, predilection, partiality, proclivity"

We do have different definitions of bias. The difference is that mine is right and yours isn't.

You just conceded that the decisions GI makes is for business purposes based on real numbers (that you disputed before, and for reasons unknown ignored just now). If that makes GI bias against Nintendo then we're all bias all of the time against everything we don't apply equally. Do you drive a particular car? Then you're bias against all other manufacturers even if you bought that car because it was in your price range. Doing something because it's financially viable doesn't imply prejudicial deference. Prejudice is made up of two words: "pre" "judge." Nobody is pre judging anything. They're judging. That's the difference.

I walk home on Main St. instead of Park Ave. because it's a shorter trip. That's not pre judging. That's judging. But according to your definition I guess I'm biased against Park Ave. That other guy goes to McDonalds insteads of Burger King because it's closer. That bastard is bias against Burger King. "Bias" is a much harsher charge than simply one of basic decision making based on something concrete. It suggests a predisposition toward one angle without a rational reason. Forgive the inflammatory example but it would be akin to somebody calling another "racist" because the latter person doesn't have any close friends of a particular race.

I suppose a very thin definition of bias could relate to the simple act of making one choice over another regardless of reasoning but you can't seriously suggest that such a definition is the common connotation the word "bias" implies. News outlets make choices about what stories to report. But suggesting that a news outlet is "bias" is actually a very serious charge and implies there's some deficiency in the reporting. It's highly deceptive, if not outright incorrect, to use the word "bias" if all they're doing is choosing one story over another because of time constraints and other real concerns.

You want to say that GI spends less space on Wii coverage, be my guest. But if you're going to argue "bias" then the burden is on you because I've already provided many facts showing that "bias" is the incorrect word.

And I know what you're going to say. "But, they clearly have a predisposition to doing good business." Yes, perhaps they do. But that chain doesn't continue forever. A "bias" toward making money (which is a pretty foolish way to word it for reasons above) is just that, toward making money. It doesn't necessarily follow that they're bias specifically against the Wii. The Wii may be a victim of the tendency of the magazine's desire to make money but it's only indirectly so. That's not what speakers of the English language mean when they say someone or something is biased. You're stretching the definition too far.

I don't know if you intend this but the word "bias" implies there's something a little bit sinister. It implies that GI didn't review more Wii games because they didn't like Reggie Fils-Aimé's face or something like that. That paints a very different picture than GI not reviewing more Wii games because the magazine might suffer financially.

[j_factor]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bias

"a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."

Look at the synonyms:

"predisposition, preconception, predilection, partiality, proclivity"

We do have different definitions of bias. The difference is that mine is right and yours isn't.

If you really want to nitpick, I will simply note that "bias" is your word, not mine. I originally only said that GI's coverage was "tilted" against the Wii. If you want to split hairs with synonyms and argue that they may be tilted, but they are certainly not biased, then you can just assume that I concede the point, and stop reading right here.

You just conceded that the decisions GI makes is for business purposes based on real numbers (that you disputed before, and for reasons unknown ignored just now).

When did I dispute the numbers? All I said was that GI's coverage was tilted against the Wii in terms of volume. I "ignored" your numbers because honestly, I didn't care to read all that, and I thought that you'd already agreed earlier that I was correct on that point. Because earlier you were arguing not that I was wrong that their coverage was tilted in such a manner, but that it was "not fair to judge them" for it.

If that makes GI bias against Nintendo then we're all bias all of the time against everything we don't apply equally. Do you drive a particular car? Then you're bias against all other manufacturers even if you bought that car because it was in your price range. Doing something because it's financially viable doesn't imply prejudicial deference. Prejudice is made up of two words: "pre" "judge." Nobody is pre judging anything. They're judging. That's the difference.

No, that's not a good analogy at all. Buying a car is making a singular purchase. Publishing a monthly magazine with a number of articles in each issue is a repeating action with a pattern. If you've bought several cars in your lifetime and you always buy Hondas, then you're biased.

I suppose a very thin definition of bias could relate to the simple act of making one choice over another regardless of reasoning but you can't seriously suggest that such a definition is the common connotation the word "bias" implies. News outlets make choices about what stories to report. But suggesting that a news outlet is "bias" is actually a very serious charge and implies there's some deficiency in the reporting. It's highly deceptive, if not outright incorrect, to use the word "bias" if all they're doing is choosing one story over another because of time constraints and other real concerns.

All news outlets are biased. Any journalism major will tell you that there's no such thing as unbiased media.

You want to say that GI spends less space on Wii coverage, be my guest.

That is pretty much exactly what I said, originally. You still took umbrage, though.

But if you're going to argue "bias" then the burden is on you because I've already provided many facts showing that "bias" is the incorrect word.

Okay, except you brought the word "bias" into it. If you want to remove the word "bias" from this conversation, I'm not going to argue.

And I know what you're going to say. "But, they clearly have a predisposition to doing good business." Yes, perhaps they do. But that chain doesn't continue forever. A "bias" toward making money (which is a pretty foolish way to word it for reasons above) is just that, toward making money. It doesn't necessarily follow that they're bias specifically against the Wii. The Wii may be a victim of the tendency of the magazine's desire to make money but it's only indirectly so. That's not what speakers of the English language mean when they say someone or something is biased. You're stretching the definition too far.

I don't know if you intend this but the word "bias" implies there's something a little bit sinister. It implies that GI didn't review more Wii games because they didn't like Reggie Fils-Aimé's face or something like that. That paints a very different picture than GI not reviewing more Wii games because the magazine might suffer financially.

"Bias" doesn't in any way imply anything sinister. I don't know why you think that. It is human nature to be biased; all of us are biased in multiple ways. Bias is, as you even said above, simply a prejudice or predisposition to go in a certain way. Saying that GI is just not biased is, to me, a silly claim. Every magazine is biased. Bias is an inevitable product of the limitations involved -- limited space, limited time, limited staff.

A motorcycle magazine may be biased in favor of Harleys because they've made the determination that their audience (or potential audience) is mostly Harley enthusiasts. That means they've made a business decision, but it doesn't mean they're not biased.

[TonyTheTiger]

If you really want to nitpick, I will simply note that "bias" is your word, not mine. I originally only said that GI's coverage was "tilted" against the Wii. If you want to split hairs with synonyms and argue that they may be tilted, but they are certainly not biased, then you can just assume that I concede the point, and stop reading right here.

I don't know what you're talking about because this here is the first sentence of your first post in the thread:

GI can be very biased.

If you had said "tilted" or "covers the Wii less" then I wouldn't have said anything.

When did I dispute the numbers? All I said was that GI's coverage was tilted against the Wii in terms of volume. I "ignored" your numbers because honestly, I didn't care to read all that, and I thought that you'd already agreed earlier that I was correct on that point. Because earlier you were arguing not that I was wrong that their coverage was tilted in such a manner, but that it was "not fair to judge them" for it.

I never disputed that the Wii gets less total coverage because it would be stupid to try to argue against a simple fact. Though they do seem to give the Wii more exclusive coverage which I would use to make a different argument i mention later in this post but that's another issue not worth getting into.

I did argue over the meaning of that coverage or lack thereof. When I hear the word "bias" I, like most people, interpret it as a negative term. It's generally not considered good to be biased. So if someone uses the word it's generally not a compliment. Whereas a word like "tilted" (which you seem to just have started using now) is much less charged. This seems to be over semantics more than anything else.

No, that's not a good analogy at all. Buying a car is making a singular purchase. Publishing a monthly magazine with a number of articles in each issue is a repeating action with a pattern. If you've bought several cars in your lifetime and you always buy Hondas, then you're biased.

Who's definition are you using here? I don't consider myself a genius by any stretch of the imagination but never in my life have I heard the word "bias" be used in such a casual way. It has negative connotations you seem to be ignoring. If you call someone biased they're likely to take offense because you're calling into question their integrity, be it professional or otherwise.

Okay, except you brought the word "bias" into it. If you want to remove the word "bias" from this conversation, I'm not going to argue.

See above because I didn't.

"Bias" doesn't in any way imply anything sinister. I don't know why you think that. It is human nature to be biased; all of us are biased in multiple ways. Bias is, as you even said above, simply a prejudice or predisposition to go in a certain way. Saying that GI is just not biased is, to me, a silly claim. Every magazine is biased. Bias is an inevitable product of the limitations involved -- limited space, limited time, limited staff.

A motorcycle magazine may be biased in favor of Harleys because they've made the determination that their audience (or potential audience) is mostly Harley enthusiasts. That means they've made a business decision, but it doesn't mean they're not biased.

Look, if you insist on your definition then I don't know what to say. I, personally, don't use the word in that context and most people generally don't. I'd be willing to further argue that GI gives the Wii less coverage simply by pure accident but that would open up a new can of worms so I'll refrain. I have nothing further to say regarding the "bias" issue though.

[CelticJobber]

For those complaining about many of today's gaming mags (and those now defunct like EGM) having less pages and getting thinner each year, I think that's due to the fact that the magazines don't get as much ad revenue as they used to. And you can pretty much blame the internet for that.

[TonyTheTiger]

Right. That's why I think that if anybody is thinking of getting into a print mag I recommend they find something about the magazine that is appealing beyond just the news and reviews. They'd have to find it fun to read because if all they're looking for is news and review scores they'll be wasting their money. It's the same reason why strategy guides needed to become more than just walkthroughs and are now a sort of amalgamation of walkthrough, art book, and inside peek at the development. GameFAQs is all I need if I want to know where to find the blue key.

[j_factor]

I don't know what you're talking about because this here is the first sentence of your first post in the thread:



If you had said "tilted" or "covers the Wii less" then I wouldn't have said anything.

My first post in this thread was not part of the back-and-forth we are having now. I wasn't responding to you, you didn't respond to that post, and I didn't even mention the Wii. I was talking about Dreamcast and PS2.

My original post that I directed at you said "The complaint is that their coverage is tilted against the Wii." I didn't use the word 'bias'. And yet, uh, you certainly did say something.

I did argue over the meaning of that coverage or lack thereof. When I hear the word "bias" I, like most people, interpret it as a negative term. It's generally not considered good to be biased. So if someone uses the word it's generally not a compliment. Whereas a word like "tilted" (which you seem to just have started using now) is much less charged. This seems to be over semantics more than anything else.

It may not be "good" to be biased, but it is natural. Everyone is biased. Are you saying you don't have any biases? Or that you know anyone without biases?

But yeah, re-read the thread. I used the word "tilted" not just now, but in the first post I directed at you. You responded to that post by saying it wasn't fair to say "bias". So you implied that you considered "biased" and "tilted" to be equivalent terms. But now you want to argue the semantic differences between them.

[TonyTheTiger]

Bro, seriously? You think that your mention of "bias" had nothing to do with starting this? Whatever, I'm done. I'm not going to argue semantics anymore nor am I going to argue over something as childish as who started it.

[j_factor]

Bro, seriously? You think that your mention of "bias" had nothing to do with starting this?

If it did, wouldn't we have been talking about Dreamcast?

[dhowerter]

j-factor / ALL -

Thanks for all your replies


Couple of questions I forgot to ask before:


1. How is Play's coverage of the Wii and DS? Which mag would you say covers the Wii and DS more: Play or Game Informer?

2. Which is more pro-Wii in general? Game Informer or Play?


3. How is PLAY's AND Game Informer's coverage of PORTABLE titles? (mainly the DS)
Given that the DS is one of my favorite systems this gen, I want to know how it is covered


4. How is Play's coverage of mainstream titles?
I'd like a little coverage on them even if the niche stuff is what Play focuses on


5. How are Play's and Game Informer's hardware articles? (introducing new systems and all their features, etc.).
The ones from EGM were excellent (and LOOONG), that was one of my favorite parts of EGM

.