CGW Redesign
j...@uwyo.edu
and away the best of the magazine crop, has reduced CGW to something that may
not even be as good as PCGamer, the new version's apparent model.
But what really really really hurts is reading Johnny Wilson's explanation in
the editorial last month for CGW. He said something like,
formerly, all the action was in the text, but now the redesign would
put the action in the graphics
Exactly the problem! I'm not looking for action in the graphics! The writing
*is* where it was at for CGW, like not other gaming mag I've read. Wilson's
explanation may not have intended to say that the text would be dumbed down
and the emphasis placed on graphics, but the magazine sure appears to have
done just that. Particularly ironic, given his quite reasonable criticism of
game companies' doing just that.
Jon Schwartz
j...@uwyo.edu
Andy Watkins
I'm in the UK so have only just got February's CGW or CG
as it appears to be called now.... I agree it does appear to
suck big time in comparison to the high standards we had come to
expect. It's the only magazine I regularly buy and I have to have
it imported from the states...... Not to sure about renewing my
subscription.
But I have until November to make my mind up.....
Andy Watkins
Greg Bemis
>As others have commented, the unfortunate redesign of what was formerly far
>and away the best of the magazine crop, has reduced CGW to something that may
>not even be as good as PCGamer, the new version's apparent model.
<good comments deleted>
>Jon Schwartz
>j...@uwyo.edu
You know, it's funny. I was looking for CGW at the magazine stand a
few weeks ago and simply could not find it. Then my friend pointed it
out to me. My god, what an awful cover. I flipped through it and
tossed it back on the stand. I don't think it's too much to ask for a
magazine to remain informative, cogent, and easy on the eyes. The new
CGW has really taken a turn for the worse.
Robin Kim
>I'm not looking for action in the graphics! The writing
>*is* where it was at for CGW, like not other gaming mag I've read. Wilson's
>explanation may not have intended to say that the text would be dumbed down
>and the emphasis placed on graphics, but the magazine sure appears to have
>done just that. Particularly ironic, given his quite reasonable criticism of
>game companies' doing just that.
I'm not aware that any policy change occurred along with the
introduction of the new format that forced contributors to change the
style of their articles. IMHO, the text is the same as its always
been; only the look is different.
Alex Kubiak
Bullshit. The content is just as great as before. I can't believe you'd
dismiss CGW that easily. Cirulis was right about you Net blowhards.
duncan r mclean
PLEASE exuse me, your royal smugness...a simple peon would just like to
say...I DONT LIKE THE NEW LAYOUT EITHER....GOT IT?? And if I may
humbly be allowed to continue to speak, since when has NAME CALLING
been declared an intelligent rebuttal?? Methinks you've been listening
to WAY too many political sound bytes.
intolerant little fellow...
Brent
>
> On Thu, 22 Feb 1996, Greg Bemis wrote:
>
> > j...@UWyo.Edu wrote:
> >
> > >As others have commented, the unfortunate redesign of what was formerly far
> > >and away the best of the magazine crop, has reduced CGW to something that may
> > >not even be as good as PCGamer, the new version's apparent model.
> >
> > <good comments deleted>
> >
> > >Jon Schwartz
> > >j...@uwyo.edu
> >
> >
> > You know, it's funny. I was looking for CGW at the magazine stand a
> > few weeks ago and simply could not find it. Then my friend pointed it
> > out to me. My god, what an awful cover. I flipped through it and
> > tossed it back on the stand. I don't think it's too much to ask for a
> > magazine to remain informative, cogent, and easy on the eyes. The new
> > CGW has really taken a turn for the worse.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Bullshit. The content is just as great as before. I can't believe you'd
> dismiss CGW that easily. Cirulis was right about you Net blowhards.
CGW has gone down hill since PC Gamer came out. It used to worthwhile to read but now I find
very little in it of value. Scan it at the newstand and then put it back.
Brent
mjs
Another idiot. The **articles** are just as good as they always were. The
**articles** in the mag haven't changed. Its still the only good mag out there.
Alex Kubiak
> In <Pine.SOL.3.91.960223...@dale.ucdavis.edu> Alex
> Kubiak <ez04...@peseta.ucdavis.edu> writes:
> >
> >On Thu, 22 Feb 1996, Greg Bemis wrote:
> >
> >> j...@UWyo.Edu wrote:
> >>
> >> >As others have commented, the unfortunate redesign of what was
> formerly far
> >> >and away the best of the magazine crop, has reduced CGW to
> something that may
> >> >not even be as good as PCGamer, the new version's apparent model.
> >>
> >> <good comments deleted>
> >>
> >> >Jon Schwartz
> >> >j...@uwyo.edu
> >>
> >>
> >> You know, it's funny. I was looking for CGW at the magazine stand a
> >> few weeks ago and simply could not find it. Then my friend pointed
> it
> >> out to me. My god, what an awful cover. I flipped through it and
> >> tossed it back on the stand. I don't think it's too much to ask for
> a
> >> magazine to remain informative, cogent, and easy on the eyes. The
> new
> >> CGW has really taken a turn for the worse.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >Bullshit. The content is just as great as before. I can't believe
> you'd
> >dismiss CGW that easily. Cirulis was right about you Net blowhards.
>
>
> PLEASE exuse me, your royal smugness...a simple peon would just like to
> say...I DONT LIKE THE NEW LAYOUT EITHER....GOT IT?? And if I may
> humbly be allowed to continue to speak, since when has NAME CALLING
> been declared an intelligent rebuttal?? Methinks you've been listening
> to WAY too many political sound bytes.
> intolerant little fellow...
>
>
>
Wow. I seem to have touched a nerve here. And yet I stand by my post.
What I'm saying is that you are a buffoon if you decide to stop reading
CGW *just because of a layout change*. I guess I'm just dumbfounded by
those people who claim that a font change and a rearranging of columns
means that the magazine's worth has plummetted. I think it's just dandy
that you don't like the new layout; I, however, happen to think it's just
fine. But that's irrelevant. The key thing is that CGW remains far and
away the most intelligent and generally most superior computer game
magazine because *of its writing*. From where I stand the content of the
latest CGW is up to par. Can you point to any places where dumbing-down
has occurred? I sure can't. I'll make an analogy to actual computer
games to illustrate my point. The writing is like the gameplay and the
layout is akin to the interface and the graphics. People will always
dispute the latter but it's the former that is really important. And I
think it's superficial to claim otherwise. That's why I defend CGW.
I've read hundreds of issues of a dozen different video and computer game
magazines in my time and CGW is the only one that I consider to be really
incisive and observant. They cater to a discriminating audience. That
may be why you just don't understand.
Todd Howard
> very little in it of value. Scan it at the newstand and then put it back.
>
> Brent
I think you are all crazy. I've been reading CGW for 7 years and it is
by far the best mag. It has the most content and the best reviews.
Yeh, they have changed their look to be more like PC Gamer, but the
words are still the same.
- Todd
Prowler
>CGW has gone down hill since PC Gamer came out. It used to worthwhile to read but now I find
>very little in it of value. Scan it at the newstand and then put it back.
Is that the same PC Gamer that rated Ascendancy 93% (or there abouts).
Yea, sure PC Gamer, they should call it brain dead gamer.
--
Michael Baldi Though it take a thousand years
mba...@cyberspy.com we will be FREE! --G'Kar
***ERROR Reading Pop-Tart in Drive A: Delete Kids? [y/n]
G. Nichols
>From: si...@foolproof.com (Greg Bemis)
>Subject: Re: CGW Redesign
>Date: Thu, 22 Feb 1996 16:52:28 GMT
>j...@UWyo.Edu wrote:
>>As others have commented, the unfortunate redesign of what was formerly far
>>and away the best of the magazine crop, has reduced CGW to something that may
>>not even be as good as PCGamer, the new version's apparent model.
><good comments deleted>
>>Jon Schwartz
>>j...@uwyo.edu
>You know, it's funny. I was looking for CGW at the magazine stand a
>few weeks ago and simply could not find it. Then my friend pointed it
>out to me. My god, what an awful cover. I flipped through it and
>tossed it back on the stand. I don't think it's too much to ask for a
>magazine to remain informative, cogent, and easy on the eyes. The new
>CGW has really taken a turn for the worse.
I too really don't care for the redesign of CGW. The graphics are off-putting
to the point of getting in the way of reading the text. Maybe they're trying
to hide some of their reviews or something...
I'm glad I'm letting my subscription lapse. After all these ugly changes and
now Alan Emrich's column is gone, there's little reason for the wargamer to
subscribe anymore. And they really never replaced M.Evan Brooks' good wargame
reviews with anyone else.
Goodbye CGW. You've mutated into some sort of ugly PC Gamer wannabe that no
longer appeals to the old Guard.
-Greg
Patrick C Miller
: I'm not aware that any policy change occurred along with the
: introduction of the new format that forced contributors to change the
: style of their articles. IMHO, the text is the same as its always
: been; only the look is different.
: Rob
: op...@ihlpf.att.com
Rob is right. I've been writing for CGW for almost a year and a half
now. There has been no directive from the CGW editors instructing me to
write reviews and articles any differently than when I started. Those
who equate the new format with a change it editorial content are seeing
a boogieman who doesn't exist.
Patrick C. Miller
CGW Writer
xfy...@interaccess.com
>I too really don't care for the redesign of CGW. The graphics are off-putting
>to the point of getting in the way of reading the text. Maybe they're trying
>to hide some of their reviews or something...
>I'm glad I'm letting my subscription lapse. After all these ugly changes and
>now Alan Emrich's column is gone, there's little reason for the wargamer to
>subscribe anymore. And they really never replaced M.Evan Brooks' good wargame
>reviews with anyone else.
>Goodbye CGW. You've mutated into some sort of ugly PC Gamer wannabe that no
>longer appeals to the old Guard.
>-Greg
I think you can blame the suits at Ziff-Davis. They took a prestigous
game magazine,CGW,and have methodically ruined it.
CGW,why don't you just go ahead and start reviewing cartridge based
games now? Its ok,I don't think anyone really cares anymore.
j...@uwyo.edu
>>I'm not looking for action in the graphics! The writing
>>*is* where it was at for CGW, like not other gaming mag I've read. Wilson's
>>explanation may not have intended to say that the text would be dumbed down
>>and the emphasis placed on graphics, but the magazine sure appears to have
>>done just that. Particularly ironic, given his quite reasonable criticism of
>>game companies' doing just that.
>I'm not aware that any policy change occurred along with the
>introduction of the new format that forced contributors to change the
>style of their articles. IMHO, the text is the same as its always
>been; only the look is different.
>Rob
>op...@ihlpf.att.com
After reading two issues of the redesigned version of CGW, IMHO, in general
the reviews are much shorter, as is the magazine (down to 200+ from 3- and
400+). While some feature articles are likely about the same in length and
depth and insightfulness, I was disappointed at the trend toward one and two
page reviews without much depth. PC Gamer is probably better at presenting
short reviews - their layout concentrates the review, CGW now pads with a
facing page of an ad, and in what seems to me to be a recent change, lines a
page with one or two columns of ads, sometimes leaving only one column of
editorial matter - the review thus stretches over several "pages", but is only
literally a couple pages or so.
Certainly, length is not everything, and cannot substitute for quality. I
don't have the current issue in front of me, but I remember while
reading it this weekend being surprised at how short some reviews of fairly
major games (for a gaming magazine) were, and thinking that in years past,
major games always seemed to warrant three, four perhaps more pages.
Change often is first met with disappointment or negative responses, and I
recognize that. Still, the CGW changes seem substantive...the benfits are
supposedly better graphics, but the cost seems to me to be at the expense of
the editorial content and space.
Jon Schwartz
j...@uwyo.edu
Thomas Neil Franklin
getting the March issue and reading it I must make some
comments of my own.
This once great magazine has gone the same way that I fear our
great hobby will. It has been dumbed down for the masses.
I'll bet Alan has been looking for a new job ever since he
realized what was happening at CGW. Not only are the graphics
bad, but as others have said, the writing has gone to the dogs
as well. No game got below 2 1/2 stars, no matter how bad,
except (and this is VERY TELLING) Battles In Time, which was
totally hammered and got 1 star. Battles is from now defunct
SSI, which of course will no longer be buying any advertising...
As if to try and head-off these charges, Martin Cirulis, in his
back page editorial talks about how tough his job is, and how
we are all "Net-Wits" for having the audacity to talk about
what a piece of crap his magazine is now. He also claims to
have NEVER been influenced by advertiser. (I bet the editors
are the ones in the advertisers pockets...)
Anyway, it is a shame that a once great publication (and I do
mean great) has gone so far downhill. If Alan is any
indication I bet we see others who can get other work leave
too, now that CGW is just like all the other gaming MAGS. It's
just another rag that I will buy now and again to get a demo
from.
Too bad... I once loooked so forward to the funny,
well-written articles, and tough forward-thinking editorials.
The reviews were 1st rate, and I almost always agreed with
them. Now CGW is just a piece of crap, another victim of the
Dumbing Down of Computer Gaming.
--
Tom Franklin
University of Virginia School of Medicine
Internet: tn...@Virginia.edu
Tim Chown
>
> Is that the same PC Gamer that rated Ascendancy 93% (or there abouts).
> Yea, sure PC Gamer, they should call it brain dead gamer.
Yep, the same PC Gamer which said Steel Panthers was an excellent
real-time strategy game. Duh. Had they actually played it? No.
It is excellent, but it's the antithesis of C&C :-)
Tim
Alex Kubiak
heard anything about this (February's is my most recent issue).
Robin Kim
inside information, so your opinion is as good as mine. Second, I found
your post thoughtful and rationally presented--totally out of place for
Usenet! :^)
<j...@UWyo.Edu> wrote:
>>I'm not aware that any policy change occurred along with the
>>introduction of the new format that forced contributors to change the
>>style of their articles. IMHO, the text is the same as its always
>>been; only the look is different.
>
>>Rob
>>op...@ihlpf.att.com
>
>After reading two issues of the redesigned version of CGW, IMHO, in general
>the reviews are much shorter, as is the magazine (down to 200+ from 3- and
>400+).
I think I noticed the same things. Denny Atkin, Features Editor,
said in another post that the magazine's overall size always shrinks
after the big holiday season, so it looks like it's only a seasonal
change we're seeing.
As for the shorter articles, I can think of three possible
explanations. One, since the overall size is smaller, the articles
have to be shorter, which would be be unfortunate. Two, it reflects a
policy change, as you suspect. Three, the games reviewed were not
rated well; I'm not positive, but I believe there may be a tendency to
allot less space to badly rated games unless they are really major
releases.
>While some feature articles are likely about the same in length and
>depth and insightfulness, I was disappointed at the trend toward one and two
>page reviews without much depth.
Try correlating length with rating and see if a pattern emerges. I admit
I've not done a rigorous analysis of this myself.
>PC Gamer is probably better at presenting
>short reviews - their layout concentrates the review, CGW now pads with a
>facing page of an ad, and in what seems to me to be a recent change, lines a
>page with one or two columns of ads, sometimes leaving only one column of
>editorial matter - the review thus stretches over several "pages", but is only
>literally a couple pages or so.
I don't read PC Gamer much, but do agree with your observation about how
the new CGW format spreads articles out.
>Certainly, length is not everything, and cannot substitute for quality. I
>don't have the current issue in front of me, but I remember while
>reading it this weekend being surprised at how short some reviews of fairly
>major games (for a gaming magazine) were, and thinking that in years past,
>major games always seemed to warrant three, four perhaps more pages.
Perhaps one factor is that games are released much more frequently now
than they used to be. Of course, for this to be a problem the magazine
would have to be growing by a slower rate, which may indeed be the case.
I don't know.
>Change often is first met with disappointment or negative responses, and I
>recognize that. Still, the CGW changes seem substantive...the benfits are
>supposedly better graphics, but the cost seems to me to be at the expense of
>the editorial content and space.
When the new format was introduced, it was mentioned in an editorial that
the new design allows just as much text as the old one--they tested it on
a previous issue and found this to be the case. So whatever your concerns
are about the possibly changing textual content of the magazine, don't blame
the new graphical format.
oleg
ez04...@peseta.ucdavis.edu says...
[misc comments re: dumbing down of CGW deleted]
>Wow. I seem to have touched a nerve here. And yet I stand by my post.
>What I'm saying is that you are a buffoon if you decide to stop reading
>CGW *just because of a layout change*. I guess I'm just dumbfounded by
>those people who claim that a font change and a rearranging of columns
>means that the magazine's worth has plummetted. I think it's just dandy
>that you don't like the new layout; I, however, happen to think it's just
>fine. But that's irrelevant. The key thing is that CGW remains far and
>away the most intelligent and generally most superior computer game
>magazine because *of its writing*. From where I stand the content of the
>latest CGW is up to par. Can you point to any places where dumbing-down
>has occurred? I sure can't. I'll make an analogy to actual computer
>games to illustrate my point. The writing is like the gameplay and the
>layout is akin to the interface and the graphics. People will always
>dispute the latter but it's the former that is really important. And I
>think it's superficial to claim otherwise. That's why I defend CGW.
>I've read hundreds of issues of a dozen different video and computer game
>magazines in my time and CGW is the only one that I consider to be really
>incisive and observant. They cater to a discriminating audience. That
>may be why you just don't understand.
I may be an undiscriminating 'netwit' to you and Martin Cirrulis, but
as someone who has been reading CGW regularly for almost a decade I
flatter myself to think I am qualified to comment. At leas as qualified
as someone who has read 'hundreds of issues of a dozen video and
computer game magazines in [his] time',
To say that the content of CGW has retained its quality is just plain
silly. The language is somewhere at fourth grade level now, the
reviews have all the complexity of a Nintendo house mag review, the
level of sheer *smugness* exhibited by the magazine is astounding.
Once upone a time CGW was a respected voice which could be counted on
to provide an intelligent perspective on a genre that is too often
dominated by items designed to appeal to people fascinated by bright
and shiny things. Then, Z*ff-D*v*s bought it. For a while CGW coasted
on its reputation as review quality plummeted, advertising and bulkiness
skyrocketed, and the magazine target audience seemingly shifted from
the intelligent gamer to the mass-market. The recent outrageous increase
in price ($7.95 for a magazine with a CD that would cost me $1.00 to burn
in a thousand piece quantity, and much less in the quantities that CGW
distributes, carries advertising, and is filled with demos gotten
for FREE from the game companies) and the redesign of the look have
merely completed the slide into violent mediocrity that began so long
ago. RIP Computer Gaming World. May your new audience enjoy computer
GAMING!!!!!!!!! World as much as we did.
oleg
Patrick C Miller
: I may be an undiscriminating 'netwit' to you and Martin Cirrulis, but
: as someone who has been reading CGW regularly for almost a decade I
: flatter myself to think I am qualified to comment. At leas as qualified
: as someone who has read 'hundreds of issues of a dozen video and
: computer game magazines in [his] time',
I've been reading the magazine as long as you have, plus I'm a regular
reader of Strategy Plus and PC Gamer. I've also been writing for CGW for
more than a year, which makes me somewhat biased, but it also provides me
with insights that others don't have.
: To say that the content of CGW has retained its quality is just plain
: silly.
That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I will point out,
however, that nothing in your post tends to support your opinion.
: The language is somewhere at fourth grade level now, the
: reviews have all the complexity of a Nintendo house mag review, the
: level of sheer *smugness* exhibited by the magazine is astounding.
Unless you can provide some proof that the language has declined from,
say, eigth-grade level to fourth-grade level, you are once again
expressing an unsubstantiated opinion. There is nothing wrong with
clear, concise communication. The point of writing is, after all, to be
understood.
Smugness? That's another subjective judgement on your part. CGW at
one time had some writers who were so smug that I could hardly stand to
read anything they wrote. Personally, I don't miss them and I think the
magazine's level of smugness is lower than it once was.
: Once upone a time CGW was a respected voice which could be counted on
: to provide an intelligent perspective on a genre that is too often
: dominated by items designed to appeal to people fascinated by bright
: and shiny things.
What evidence can you provide that this is no longer true?
: Then, Z*ff-D*v*s bought it.
Ah, Ziff Davis, the root of all evil. :) Why am I not surprised that this
is at the heart of your argument? While I won't claim that every change
made under ZD has been good, I do believe that that ZD's overall
influence on the magazine has been positive.
: For a while CGW coasted on its reputation as review quality plummeted,
: advertising and bulkiness skyrocketed, and the magazine target audience
: seemingly shifted from the intelligent gamer to the mass-market.
Are you saying that anyone who reads the magazine is not an intelligent
gamer? Pardon me, but your elitism and intellectual snobbery are
showing. Consider the original title of the magazine: Computer Gaming
World. The magazine has always been targeted at the mass market. It was
always designed to make money -- not to appeal only to a niche group of
Ivory Tower gamers with their heads in the clouds.
Furthermore, I'm sure you don't realize this, but your statment about
the magazine's editorial content declining while advertising increased
contradicts itself. Magazines with poor editorial content don't sell
well. If what you said was true, CGW would be experiencing declining
readership, but it's not. Its circulation is increasing and that's why
it's selling more ads.
: The recent outrageous increase in price ($7.95 for a magazine with a CD
: that would cost me $1.00 to burn in a thousand piece quantity, and much
: less in the quantities that CGW distributes, carries advertising, and
: is filled with demos gotten for FREE from the game companies) and the
: redesign of the look have merely completed the slide into violent
: mediocrity that began so long ago.
This has been covered many times before. The magazine is available at
the same price *without* the CD. If you don't want or don't like the CD,
don't buy it. It's that simple.
: RIP Computer Gaming World. May your new audience enjoy computer :
: GAMING!!!!!!!!! World as much as we did.
I'm sorry that you no longer enjoy CGW. I find that its broader scope
and greater variety provides me with more useful information than ever
before. Even if I didn't write for the magazine, I would continue to
subscribe to it because it is, by far, the best computer gaming magazine
on the market.
Prowler
CGW and none of the others. Most of us have heard of that absolutely
gorgeous screen saver called Ascendancy. I read the reviews in the
other three major computer game magazines, and based on their
unanimous "thumbs up, 93%, 4 1/2 stars, the game to dethrone Master of
Orion...ect...ect.." I bought this alleged strategy game, and found
out very quickly, the best way to win was to return it. Not a week
later, I got the newest issue of CGW and BLAM! there it was in black
and white, the <GASP> "TRUTH!". Out of all four mags, CGW was the
only one to review the game, and give me the REAL STORY.
The said it looked great, sounded great, but had some major problems,
not the least of which was the tottal abscence of anything even
resembling A.I. That was the final straw for me, and I have not
renewed my subscriptions to any of the others.
While I must admit the redesign is a little disturbing to me, I feel
that it is more a case of being "comfortable" with the old format,
knowing excatly where everything was, and my eyes following a well
recognized patern as I scaned through the reviews. In a few months I
will once again become comfortable with the layout and be zipping
along at high speed.
As far as the "dumbing down", while it has never been an intilectual
magazine, why should it be? I read it to find out the low down on the
new games, peripherals, and hardware. Sure I would understand lots of
technobable, but I hardly find it necissary in a product devoted to
reviewing games and such. Ive never seen and article dumbed down to
the point of being painful to read, when I want something
intelectually stimulating, I read the newest copy of Scientific
American.
Now about this Ziff-Davis bashing. Yes, I feel that a big corperation
has a slight detrimental effect to some areas if not properly managed.
However, CGW has done a very good job of maintaining its identity.
BTW, Ive met the president of ZD, and his picture would fit in nicely
next to the word GEEK: (n) in a dictionary (no offence, and his wife
is a cutey!) but I digress. The point is that although I feel that
the amount of advertisments in the magazine has increased to a point a
little past what i would like it ( I dont mind adds for the "NEW HOT
GAME", but I really hate those 6 page mail order adds ) sometimes you
have to make comprimises to keep a magazine economicaly viable.
And I'll touch on the CD issue (dispite my better judgement)
Yes, you know as well as I that it comes in two flavors, with and
without the CD. While I feel the price for the CD is a little steep,
thats probably because I have unlimited net access, and can D/L all
the demos at my leasure. Some people are either not on-line, or are
forced to use crappy servers like AOL (had to slam AOL at least once
today) and pay a high premium for time on-line because of their
location out local areas with independent net servers. To these
people a few extra dollars is only 1 hour of online time, not nearly
enough to D/L more than one demo, and so is a bargain to them.
and thats my 2 cents..........15 cents for the CD version
Bruce Rennie
Distribution:
Patrick C Miller (pami...@plains.nodak.edu) wrote:
: oleg (ol...@chinchilla.org) wrote:
[ Comparisons of poster's respective penis sizes removed]
: : To say that the content of CGW has retained its quality is just plain
: : silly.
: That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I will point out,
: however, that nothing in your post tends to support your opinion.
: : The language is somewhere at fourth grade level now, the
: : reviews have all the complexity of a Nintendo house mag review, the
: : level of sheer *smugness* exhibited by the magazine is astounding.
: Unless you can provide some proof that the language has declined from,
: say, eigth-grade level to fourth-grade level, you are once again
: expressing an unsubstantiated opinion. There is nothing wrong with
: clear, concise communication. The point of writing is, after all, to be
: understood.
Oh, stop with the proof spiel, will ya ? This isn't some scientific exercise.
If he says that he feels the level of writing at CGW has declined then that's
enough. As a CGW defender you don't have to worry about proof. You have to
worry if a lot of other people FEEL the same way as him. From what I've
heard on the net, they do. Sorry, I can't prove that.
[ More pseudo-scientific babble removed. ]
: I'm sorry that you no longer enjoy CGW. I find that its broader scope
: and greater variety provides me with more useful information than ever
: before. Even if I didn't write for the magazine, I would continue to
: subscribe to it because it is, by far, the best computer gaming magazine
: on the market.
All that babble about proof, elitism, snobbery, etc and it all boils down
to a lame "You've got your opinion, I've got mine" conclusion ? Why the hell
did you bother replying ?
Look, if you're acting in the capacity of a CGW contributer, then you
have two choices:
1) Decide the guys a crank, ignore what he says, and hope CGW doesn't fall
on it's face in the near future.
2) LOOK at what he said, EXAMINE CGW and its contents, see if what he says
has any validity, and, if so, decide what you can do about it. Maybe he's
doing you a favor, hmmm ?
: Patrick C. Miller
: CGW Writer
/bruce
--
******************************************************************************
* Bruce Rennie Q: Are We Not Men ? *
* bre...@interlog.com, bru...@numetrix.com *
* *
******************************************************************************
old-...@li.net
Redesign...(is being a blowhard GOOD??):
<CGW stuff snip>
=>Now about this Ziff-Davis bashing. Yes, I feel that a big corperation
=>has a slight detrimental effect to some areas if not properly managed.
=>However, CGW has done a very good job of maintaining its identity.
=>BTW, Ive met the president of ZD, and his picture would fit in nicely
=>next to the word GEEK: (n) in a dictionary (no offence, and his wife
=>is a cutey!) but I digress. The point is that although I feel that
=>the amount of advertisments in the magazine has increased to a point a
=>little past what i would like it ( I dont mind adds for the "NEW HOT
=>GAME", but I really hate those 6 page mail order adds ) sometimes you
=>have to make comprimises to keep a magazine economicaly viable.
All this is moot, ZD was bought out by a Japanese company
about 2 or 3 months ago.
<more CGW stuff snip>
___________________________________________________________________
Notice. Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct
others to make they're life fulfilled.
But even if I am unskilled in speech,I am not in knowledge 2 Co 11:6
I rather be right, then Politically Correct Old-...@li.net
____________________________________________________________________
Ben Giordano
Miller) wrote:
>oleg (ol...@chinchilla.org) wrote:
>
>: Then, Z*ff-D*v*s bought it.
>
> Ah, Ziff Davis, the root of all evil. :) Why am I not surprised that this
>is at the heart of your argument? While I won't claim that every change
>made under ZD has been good, I do believe that that ZD's overall
>influence on the magazine has been positive.
I agree. When Ziff-Davis buys something, everybody who objects blames
it for everything. FYI: Ziff-Davis itself has been bought by SoftKey,
a Japanese company.
>: For a while CGW coasted on its reputation as review quality plummeted,
>: advertising and bulkiness skyrocketed, and the magazine target audience
>: seemingly shifted from the intelligent gamer to the mass-market.
>
> Are you saying that anyone who reads the magazine is not an intelligent
>gamer? Pardon me, but your elitism and intellectual snobbery are
>showing. Consider the original title of the magazine: Computer Gaming
>World. The magazine has always been targeted at the mass market. It was
>always designed to make money -- not to appeal only to a niche group of
>Ivory Tower gamers with their heads in the clouds.
As more people acquire computers, more people will be introduced to
gaming. What is wrong with that? The magazine is for anyone who wants
to know more about computer games, not just for the so-called
"intelligent gamer." What is the definition of the "intelligent
gamer?" If only "intelligent gamers" bought computer games, there
wouldn't be a computer gaming industry, much less a computer gaming
magazine. I don't consider myself an "intelligent gamer." I regard
that as someone who is an elitist and a snob. CGW should simply ignore
them. They form such a small percentage of people who play computer
games that CGW would be free from whining if those elitists and snobs
simply don't subscribe.
Patrick C Miller
: All that babble about proof, elitism, snobbery, etc and it all boils down
: to a lame "You've got your opinion, I've got mine" conclusion ? Why the hell
: did you bother replying ?
No, Bruce, that's not what it boils down to. Some of what Oleg said is a
matter of opinion and he is certainly entitled to his opinions. However,
he also made a number of statements that are either wrong or that simply
aren't supported by any factual evidence. That was the point of my
response.
: Maybe he's doing you a favor, hmmm ?
Providing informed, constructive criticism does CGW a favor. Senseless
ranting and raving accomplishes nothing.
Pat Miller
CGW Writer
Charles Davis
>> Are you saying that anyone who reads the magazine is not an intelligent
>>gamer? Pardon me, but your elitism and intellectual snobbery are
>>showing. Consider the original title of the magazine: Computer Gaming
>>World. The magazine has always been targeted at the mass market. It was
>>always designed to make money -- not to appeal only to a niche group of
>>Ivory Tower gamers with their heads in the clouds.
>As more people acquire computers, more people will be introduced to
>gaming. What is wrong with that? The magazine is for anyone who wants
>to know more about computer games, not just for the so-called
>"intelligent gamer." What is the definition of the "intelligent
>gamer?" If only "intelligent gamers" bought computer games, there
>wouldn't be a computer gaming industry, much less a computer gaming
>magazine. I don't consider myself an "intelligent gamer." I regard
>that as someone who is an elitist and a snob. CGW should simply ignore
>them. They form such a small percentage of people who play computer
>games that CGW would be free from whining if those elitists and snobs
>simply don't subscribe.
>>Patrick C. Miller
>>CGW Writer
Sounds like CGW a magazine that succeeded by serving the grognard (
the elite of the gaming community) has now abandoned its core
audience, for the mass market. the exodus of every single wargamer
from the staff is an example of this. As is the ridiculous pricing of
the CDrom edition. CDROMS ARE CHEAP the cost of demos is nill the
poorly done multimedia stuff is worthless where is the added value?
perhaps 4.95 instead of 3.95 as having the patches available is nice
and saves the time of finding some place on the web that carries them.
But overall CGW is a faint reflection of when it used to be reliable,
and cover the games i like, rather than the latest Doom clone.
chuck
Robert Kelm
> This has been covered many times before. The magazine is available at
> the same price *without* the CD. If you don't want or don't like the
version was $4.95, the cd version was $7.95. I think I'll save the $3,
and download the demos I want instead. (I won't even mention the
difference in subscription prices!)
I do enjoy the cds, but can wait until the new issues arrive, and the
guys at the software store chuck the previous months cd.
And, apart from the redesign, the content from the few issues I've bought
doesn't seem that different from the old and new versions.
Steven Baxley
>A simple format change should not effect the content overly unless the
>amount of space devoted to the reviews, etc is diminished. Is this so ?
January 1996 CGW(before change): 18 reviews, 40 pages, 2.3 pages per review.
February 1996 CGW(after change): 18 reviews, 29.5 pages, 1.6 pages per review.
March 1996 CGW: 23 reviews, 39 pages, 1.7 pages per review
February 1995 CGW(a year ago): 19 reviews, 49.5 pages, 2.6 pages per review.
February 1996 PC Gamer: 21 reviews, 28 pages, 1.3 pages per review.
Your page count may vary slightly depending on how you count pages with ads.
The point is that reviews are obviously shorter than they were before the
format change.
RDClark
with ads.
The point is that reviews are obviously shorter than they were before the
format change.
>>>>>>>
You should be counting words, not pages, since the change in typeface
affects the number of words per page.
Since editors usually order articles by wordcount, and since page layout
artists design magazines assuming specific wordcounts per article, it's
unlikely that all of the articles suddenly got shorter with the new
design. More likely that the new layout allows more words to fit on a page
-- which is always a goal for magazine designers.
I have no idea whether CGW's wordcount went up or down with the new
format. I have no idea whether the number of column-inches devoted to
editorial graphics went up or down, either. But to prove your point, those
are the things you need to measure, not page-count.
------------------------------------------------------------
|---RichC----------------------------Interfacing is easy---|
|---rd...@aol.com-------Compatibility takes a lifetime---|
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarinee Achavanuntakul
: January 1996 CGW(before change): 18 reviews, 40 pages, 2.3 pages per review.
: February 1996 CGW(after change): 18 reviews, 29.5 pages, 1.6 pages per review.
: March 1996 CGW: 23 reviews, 39 pages, 1.7 pages per review
: February 1995 CGW(a year ago): 19 reviews, 49.5 pages, 2.6 pages per review.
: February 1996 PC Gamer: 21 reviews, 28 pages, 1.3 pages per review.
Wow. Counting average pages per review-- I've never thought of
that before.
But seriously, why should the number of pages matter? I'm one of
those who DON'T think the quality of CGW reviews has changed overall
after the redesign. True, there are more NEW reviewers whose tastes are
just diametrically opposite to mine, but let's think about possible
reasons the number of pages drop, if you want to use it as a yardstick.
My theory is that CGW is doing better, so naturally that means
more ads-- I don't like that either but hey, the magazine HAS to survive
in this world of inflation, right? Also, in the old days there were MORE
wargames/strategy games relative to other genres; since these are games
that are more complex than others, thorough reviews of them NATURALLY
have to be longer than, say, reviewing a short adventure game. So, since
nowadays there are less wargames relative to the entire market, the space
devoted to other genres would HAVE to increase as a whole IF CGW wanted
to accurately cover the entire gaming industry-- decrease in average
number of pages per review results.
-Sarinee
(Hmm... I think I'll write more on this in a separate post)
Steven Baxley
>You should be counting words, not pages, since the change in typeface
>affects the number of words per page.
>Since editors usually order articles by wordcount, and since page layout
>artists design magazines assuming specific wordcounts per article, it's
>unlikely that all of the articles suddenly got shorter with the new
>design. More likely that the new layout allows more words to fit on a page
>-- which is always a goal for magazine designers.
>I have no idea whether CGW's wordcount went up or down with the new
>format. I have no idea whether the number of column-inches devoted to
>editorial graphics went up or down, either. But to prove your point, those
>are the things you need to measure, not page-count.
I'm not going to go article by article and do a word count, and I doubt that
anyone else will waste the time either. I did count one article each from the
Jan. and Feb. issues. Each is one page long.
Gadget, p.236, Jan. 1996: 672 word review, 27 word editorial summary.
Black Knight, p.200, Feb. 1996: 512 word review, 78 word editorial summary.
The typeface is smaller after the format change, but there is also a
half-column of white space on the edge of the page, so less space is devoted
to text. Because the title is also a little larger in Feb., it seems logical
that the new format has a higher wordcount than the old on non-title pages,
but I haven't tested this. I would be surprised, however, if the average # of
words per review page grew after the format change.
Patrick C Miller
: The typeface is smaller after the format change, but there is also a
: half-column of white space on the edge of the page, so less space is devoted
: to text. Because the title is also a little larger in Feb., it seems logical
: that the new format has a higher wordcount than the old on non-title pages,
: but I haven't tested this. I would be surprised, however, if the
: average # of : words per review page grew after the format change.
Measuring the length of reviews by word count is far more accurate than
measuring them by page count. I can tell you that when I was assigned my
first review on October 31, 1994, I was asked to write 1,800 words.
Since the latest format change, the editors have continued to request
1,800-word reviews.
I will say that there appears to be a conscious decision by the CGW
editors not to waste a lot of space on bad games or on game add-ons.
Pat Miller
CGW Writer
Rhett M. Stroh
: page. As I noted in another post, I do think CGW is devoting less space
: to reviews of bad games and game add-ons.
I have a suggestion: How about short "capsule" review page of the bad games
that didn't make the grade that month. You could put ten or fifteen on a
page and just hit the lowlight of the game. Bad games need reviews too!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Rhett Stroh "The Eunuch Of Unix" |
| rms...@gdesystems.com |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------