CGW Arrogance, Continued
TVspace
>4. Reading Martin Cirulis' bombastic diatribe, and wondering who
>decided to let him have his own column.
I agree with some of the points in your complaints, but I must say that I
enjoy Martin's column very much. It strikes me as more irreverent than
bombastic, and is a welcome antidote to the more promotional aspects of
other areas of the magazine. Now if only he'd write a column: "What's
the Deal With....Computer Gaming World?..." ;->
**********************************************************************
VOTE HARVEY GANTT ---------------- US SENATE
*********************************************************************
Brian Griffin
jgbe...@aol.com (Joe Grant Bell) inscribed on cyberspace:
>As a freelance writer in the gaming industry, I have become
>increasingly miffed over the last two years at the number of slams,
>put-downs and outright insults coming from Computer Gaming World's
>editoral staff, usually targeted at other magazines.
{snip}
>4. Reading Martin Cirulis' bombastic diatribe, and wondering who
>decided to let him have his own column.
Agree with certain of the poster's points (especially in re the
ludicrous number of ads in CGW these days.....though my big beef is how
loud, juvenile, and downright ugly gaming ads in all the magizines are
becoming)........*However*
Must say I was rather satisfied to see Martin Cirulis publicly air the
feelings an awful lot of us on this newgroup have expressed about the
infamous Ascendancy review. I'll admit right here that I was duped into
buying that howling turkey, and that I'm still a bit miffed about it
(and was _quite_ disappointed not to see it on CGW's "50 worst" list).
Of course, it was my own fault for beeing just a bit too eager to play
the next MOO, but I don't think my rancor is totally unjustified.
For anybody who missed it, here's MC's comment (the context is a list of
the 15 best and worst things he's seen in 15 years of computer gaming--
this is #13 worst):
"Watching a guy from another magazine get away with giving ASCENDANCY a
92 percent review, just as his Strategy Guide was released"
--
"Gentle rain/Falls on me/And all life folds back/Into the sea
We contemplate eternity/Beneath the vast indifference of heaven"
-W. Zevon || Grateful Dead tapelist (come by if you need help
starting one): www.demonsys.com/jim/g/gri...@cdt.infi.net.html
Prowler
"Jeremy Reaban" <j...@inlink.com> wrote:
>Well, I agree with you. I read CGW for many years, but finally, in early
>1996, had enough. The magazine's really gone down hill in many aspects, the
>the thing that bugged me the most, it was getting so, so, sleazy.
I as with many others have become more and more jaded with ALL the
Computer review mags as of late. It has gotten to the point that I
don;t buy them anymmore, and usually just look at the few sections Im
interested in at the newstand.
The infamous Ascendancy review swore me off of PCG, I never considered
them a HARD CORE gammers mag...but 93% for the piece of crap the game
was...and then I find out its written by the guy who made the strategy
guide...well that was the last nickle they ever got from me.
Then CGW changed hands...and slowly I felt the quality of information
begin to wane. I had been buying the damn thing since EGA was an
option...and a 386 16mgz was a good system. But the content had begun
to drift towards 90% advertisments...and somehow the quality just
didn't "feel right". THEN the final few steps....they completely
revamp the review methods....a DISATEROUS idea at best. Within a few
months the reviews become obvously more superficial.
The final straw for me......ChessMaster 5000.....they gave it FIVE
FUCKING STARS OUT OF FIVE. We are talking about a game that has more
bugs than a five dollar motel. The game has a superb chess
engin...but ALL OF THE OTHER MUCH TOUTED FEATURES DON'T WORK. The
Opening search is severly limited.....the database of games is not
only totaly confusing (there is no indication at the end of the games
as to the outcome...draw...resign..or who won) but if you search for
WHITE WINS...you get all BLACK WINS....just a minor bug huh!! They
claim PGN format...but its not compatible with ANY OTHER CHESS
DATABASE...ect ect ect....totally useless....the thing plays one hell
of a great game of chess.....but none of the features so prased over
work.
Sad as it is....I feel that there is not a single good magazine left.
Though it take a thousand years, we will be FREE! G'Kar
*** Error reading POP-TART in Drive A: Delete kids ? [y/n]_
ADVERTISEMENT: Use my Email Archiving Service! Any unsolicited
commercial email sent to 'mba...@cyberspy.com' will be put into storage
on my hard-drive. Fulfill all of your storage needs! A charge of
$200 will be charged for every 5K or portion thereof for the first 30 days.
there after a maintenance charge of $50 per 5K or potion thereof will be assesed.
I accept CHECKS, and MONEY ORDERS. By sending commercial E-MAIL to the above mentioned address
you agree to the above terms. Unsolicited Comercial e-mail includes but is not limited too, advertisments,
chain letters/get rich schemes, mail of a religous nature, and/or ANY e-mail or file attachment over
20K and/or ANY e-mail that exceeds 3 pieces in a callander week that I have not replied to and/or
ANY E-MAIL of any nature from or at the urging of a person/persons/bussiness/organazation that I have
informed IN ANY MANNER not to send me further mailings.
Alan Dunkin
Joe Grant Bell (jgbe...@aol.com) wrote:
: last page of the latest CGW, wherein Martin Cirulis takes a cheap shot
: at both strategy guide writers and other magazines.
:
: I have no idea whether the incident he's referring to is true or
: false, but regardless, it's yet one more casual insult directed toward
: CGW's competitors. In the spirit of Cirulis' "best and worst" theme,
: here's a few of my "worst moments" from reading recent CGWs.
Cirulis is taking a page from csipg.strategic in questioning Bill
Trotter's authenticity in giving Ascendacy a 92% then releasing his own
strategy guide roughly around the same time. BTW, this has not happened
since (he did not review Close Combat, for instance).
: 4. Reading Martin Cirulis' bombastic diatribe, and wondering who
: decided to let him have his own column.
I thought about doing a column named: "What's the Deal With . . . Martin
Cirulis?" but I ran out of material after the first paragraph :)
--
Alan Dunkin, Executive Editor News/Strategy, Online Gaming Review (www.ogr.com)
Contributing Writer, Dallas Morning News; Warbirds - Black Sheep: Alan (-avd)
Michael Bay
> As a freelance writer in the gaming industry, I have become
> increasingly miffed over the last two years at the number of slams,
> put-downs and outright insults coming from Computer Gaming World's
> pointed out these insults and snide comments on this newsgroup. Why?
> Hey, what can I say... you can't argue with catharsis.
What, they wouldn't publish something you submitted and you're mad at
them?
--
Michael W. Bay
prod...@bellsouth.net
http://members.aol.com/producer
Jeremy Reaban
Well, I agree with you. I read CGW for many years, but finally, in early
1996, had enough. The magazine's really gone down hill in many aspects, the
the thing that bugged me the most, it was getting so, so, sleazy.
Jeremy
Joe Grant Bell <jgbe...@aol.com> wrote in article
<54u0hv$2m...@news.doit.wisc.edu>...
<snip>
> Number 5 isn't *that* hard to figure out, however. I've had a real
> affection for CGW since my earliest days of computer gaming, and it
> hurts to see it turn into a refuge of half-baked editorializing and
> shameless self-promotion.
>
> Comments are welcome, except from Patrick Miller, who posts on this
> group way too much as it is. <g>
>
Joel Hulsey
>1. Watching CGW tirelessly slander the reputation of their competitors
>(not naming any names, mind you) instead of shoring up their own,
>declining editorial content.
I just finished reading the article to which you refer. I can't say
that I see this the same way you do. I've met Johnny Wilson in person
(he went to the same seminary that my wife graduated from so he can't
be all bad!) and I can say that he's a genuine nice guy. I can't speak
for every single writer on their staff, but all in all I think it's
still top 'o the heap.
>2. Observing more and more ads creep into the magazine, and watching
>the editorial content simultaneously take on a glossy, over-produced
>look that makes it hard to separate from the ads.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. They have to make money after all.
As long as they don't cut down on content, I don't care if they have
1,000 pages of ads. I actually enjoy looking at the ads. Some of them
are incredibly well done and really build excitement for a game.
>3. Wondering where the quiet dignity and carefully considered
>editorials of the 1980s went.
I think it's still there. I will say that it seems to be almost
universal in computer gaming magazines that if someone writes in with
a conservative slant, every magazine will bash him/her to bits.
Strategy + is the worst offender here (sorry, but that's the way it
is...). So I don't think that Strategy + has ever been considered
anything close to "quiet dignity".
>4. Reading Martin Cirulis' bombastic diatribe, and wondering who
>decided to let him have his own column.
Personal insults won't get you much sympathy here.
He mentioned a rating of 92% for Outpost the same time that the
reviewers strategy guide hit the streets. I actually think that was a
pretty good call on his part. Outpost wasn't worth 22% and that's
fairly universal. Also, a reviewer should NEVER be allowed to review a
product as well as write the strategy guide. Of COURSE he's going to
give it glowing reviews so the guide sells well. If he had said that
Outpost sucked, how many guides do you think would have sold. This is
a simple integrity issue. I believe the offender in this case was PC
Gamer.
It's also a crime when strategy guides replace game documentation. As
someone who writes these guides, how do you feel about them? I just
bought your Mechwarrior 2 Mercenaries guide as the game documentation
was somewhat lacking. Don't even get me started on Sierra's policy of
no printed docs.....
The bottom line is while I respect your opinions here, hurling
personal insults at Mr. Cirulis just won't accomplish anything.
Joel Hulsey
John F. Lee
In article <54u0hv$2m...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
Joe Grant Bell <jgbe...@aol.com> wrote:
<snip>
Unfortunately, much as I love CGW, I must,to some extent, agree. Look,
guys, your magazine is great, but so is everybody else's. It's sad that
there's only one magazine, really (Next Generation), that doesn't slam its
competition, and CGW is the worst offender.
>
>1. Watching CGW tirelessly slander the reputation of their competitors
>(not naming any names, mind you) instead of shoring up their own,
>declining editorial content.
>
>2. Observing more and more ads creep into the magazine, and watching
>the editorial content simultaneously take on a glossy, over-produced
>look that makes it hard to separate from the ads.
2.5. Reading Electronic Gaming Monthly and realizing that CGW is starting
to look more like it...
>4. Reading Martin Cirulis' bombastic diatribe, and wondering who
>decided to let him have his own column.
And why nobody will let me have one of my own. :)
>
>5. Wondering why I even care enough to write this.
6. Being constantly insulted as a console gamer (who uses his Playstation
to play FIFA, XCOM, Die Hard, King's Field, and the like.
--
John F. Lee / jfl...@u.washington.edu
No herky-jerky starts or stops!
Dennis Benker
On Sun, 27 Oct 1996 01:27:54 GMT, gri...@cdt.infi.net (Brian Griffin)
wrote:
>jgbe...@aol.com (Joe Grant Bell) inscribed on cyberspace:
>
>>As a freelance writer in the gaming industry, I have become
>>increasingly miffed over the last two years at the number of slams,
>>put-downs and outright insults coming from Computer Gaming World's
>>editoral staff, usually targeted at other magazines.
>
>{snip}
>
>Must say I was rather satisfied to see Martin Cirulis publicly air the
>feelings an awful lot of us on this newgroup have expressed about the
>infamous Ascendancy review. I'll admit right here that I was duped into
>buying that howling turkey, and that I'm still a bit miffed about it
>(and was _quite_ disappointed not to see it on CGW's "50 worst" list).
>
>For anybody who missed it, here's MC's comment (the context is a list of
>the 15 best and worst things he's seen in 15 years of computer gaming--
>this is #13 worst):
>
>"Watching a guy from another magazine get away with giving ASCENDANCY a
>92 percent review, just as his Strategy Guide was released"
>
If this is true, then I have to side with Cirulis. A writer with a
vested interest in a product should not review it without pointing
this out in his review.
BTW, not only was Ascendancy a dog, the strategy guide was an even
worse piece of trash.
Adam G. Unikowsky
Joe Grant Bell wrote:
>
> As a freelance writer in the gaming industry, I have become
> increasingly miffed over the last two years at the number of slams,
> put-downs and outright insults coming from Computer Gaming World's
> pointed out these insults and snide comments on this newsgroup. Why?
> Hey, what can I say... you can't argue with catharsis.
>
> state it's akin to Computer Shopper (albeit without Computer Shopper's
> valuable editorial content). However, a friend recently showed me the
> last page of the latest CGW, wherein Martin Cirulis takes a cheap shot
> at both strategy guide writers and other magazines.
>
What? What cheap shot against strategy guide writers? Johnny Wilson and Terry
Coleman wrote the best strat guide ever, IMHO, on Civilization... no potshots
at them. It is only people who do both that are scorned.
> I have no idea whether the incident he's referring to is true or
> false, but regardless, it's yet one more casual insult directed toward
> CGW's competitors. In the spirit of Cirulis' "best and worst" theme,
> here's a few of my "worst moments" from reading recent CGWs.
>
> 1. Watching CGW tirelessly slander the reputation of their competitors
> (not naming any names, mind you) instead of shoring up their own,
> declining editorial content.
>
Like what, Mr. Bell? I've read this newsgroup for -awhile-, and I have never
heard CGW slander another magazine on this group. I've peered through some
back issues, and I have found 2 other references to other publications:
informing the world that Renegade 2 and Warhammer had been "allegedly"
reviewed by another publication (agreed, not all that necessary), and "see
our Renegade 2 review... not!" which was in -direct- retaliation for PC
Gamer's cheap shot, "come see our playstation section... not". "Tirelessly
slandering"? I don't think so. Actually, the CGW people are much more
friendly and pleasant than PCG; Denny Atkin and Patrick Miller have been
involoved in this newsgroup, respectfully and intelligently responding to
postings (except when Mr. Miller got a little mad at Jaybird... though I
would have been much worse :). Wonder what ever became of that pleasant
fellow? Maybe he entered psychiatry like Mr. Miller recommended :). I
suppose he needed it...). Anyway, PCG have been much less pleasant, writing
an "open letter" with several veiled accusations towards CGW and responding
to the Ascendancy flap saying that CGW is "ludicrous". The best defense is a
good offense, I guess.
> 2. Observing more and more ads creep into the magazine, and watching
> the editorial content simultaneously take on a glossy, over-produced
> look that makes it hard to separate from the ads.
>
-All- game magazines have a lot of ads. I actually kind of -like- seeing new
ads, although I admit that the porn ads in the back have always considerably
annoyed me. I also admit that CGW may have an overly high percentage of
ads (about 5% higher than PCG) but they also have more pages, so they have
the same content, CGW maybe a little more, so I have no real problem with
that. I do find the pullout ads, and the articles separated by ads (the
Cybermage review the most egregious) to be annoying, but it is not a grievous
sin. And what is wrong with glossiness if there is something also
underneath?
> 3. Wondering where the quiet dignity and carefully considered
> editorials of the 1980s went.
>
Johnny Wilson hasn't much changed, if you ask me. He still writes
intelligently and enjoyably.
> 4. Reading Martin Cirulis' bombastic diatribe, and wondering who
> decided to let him have his own column.
>
It may be bombastic, but it is a real gamer's voice and it is usually if not
always -true-, an interesting counterpoint (and I mean counterpoint) to
Johnny Wilson. And reading his Ascendancy and Outpost reviews show me that
at least he is honest. I do agree that he is a little annoying (esp. when
the netwit article, I thought it could be toned down a little) but he is
generally very good and honest.
> 5. Wondering why I even care enough to write this.
>
> Number 5 isn't *that* hard to figure out, however. I've had a real
> affection for CGW since my earliest days of computer gaming, and it
> hurts to see it turn into a refuge of half-baked editorializing and
> shameless self-promotion.
>
Give an example of either. Of course there's a little self-promotion, but
that is to be expected, no? ;). And half-baked editorializing? Please give
me an example of a half-baked editorial. There is something that Cirulis
cannot be accused of. 8)
> Comments are welcome, except from Patrick Miller, who posts on this
> group way too much as it is. <g>
>
> _______________
> Joe Grant Bell |
> __________________________________________________
> Yes, it's AOL. Stop laughing. It's a long story. |
> __________________________________________________
Adam G. Unikowsky (md...@musica.mcgill.ca)
Russell Webb
In article <3273D4...@musica.mcgill.ca>,
Adam G. Unikowsky <md...@musica.mcgill.ca> wrote:
>Like what, Mr. Bell? I've read this newsgroup for -awhile-, and I have never
>heard CGW slander another magazine on this group.
The most notable reference I can remember is Alan Emrich posting tallies
of PC Gamer's ratings for a 6-month period, saying that they had severe
grade inflation in their reviews. (I think he was right, though the very
few issues of PC Gamer I've looked at since their Ascendancy fiasco seemed
to have more honest ratings. Still, Emrich had no place chastising PC
Gamer, being a reviewer for CGW.)
See DejaNews for the thread:
>Subject: PC Gamer - Grade Inflation?
>From: cgw...@aol.com (CGW Alan)
>Date: 1995/05/05
>Message-Id: <3od80m$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
--
Russell Webb
rw...@panix.com
Gary E. Bloom
> Johnny Wilson and Terry Coleman wrote the best strat guide ever, IMHO,
on Civilization...
It was Coleman not Emrich?
--
Regards, Gary
Adam G. Unikowsky
Russell Webb wrote:
>
> In article <3273D4...@musica.mcgill.ca>,
> Adam G. Unikowsky <md...@musica.mcgill.ca> wrote:
> >heard CGW slander another magazine on this group.
>
> of PC Gamer's ratings for a 6-month period, saying that they had severe
> grade inflation in their reviews. (I think he was right, though the very
> few issues of PC Gamer I've looked at since their Ascendancy fiasco seemed
> to have more honest ratings. Still, Emrich had no place chastising PC
> Gamer, being a reviewer for CGW.)
>
> See DejaNews for the thread:
> >Subject: PC Gamer - Grade Inflation?
> >From: cgw...@aol.com (CGW Alan)
> >Date: 1995/05/05
> >Message-Id: <3od80m$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>
> --
> Russell Webb
> rw...@panix.com
I apologize. I hadn't known about that thread. Unfortunately, though,
unless I am mistaken, that thread is too old for dejanews (correct me if
I am wrong, and if I am, please explain how to access it). I still stand
by the other points of my previous post, though.
Thank you.
Adam G. Unikowsky (md...@musica.mcgill.ca)
Patrick C Miller
Raymond Bingham (ra...@fc.hp.com) wrote:
: My main complaint with CGW (and all these PC Mags) is that they
: get paid to do something I would LOVE to do... Express opinions
: on Games... gee, what a rough life... :)
It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it! ;-)
Patrick C. Miller
Freelance Writer
Computer Gaming World
Raymond Bingham
My main complaint with CGW (and all these PC Mags) is that they
get paid to do something I would LOVE to do... Express opinions
on Games... gee, what a rough life... :)
Best regards,
--
*****************************************************************
* Raymond Bingham * Fort Collins System Lab - Hewlett Packard *
* (aka. wReam...) * ra...@shofixti.fc.hp.com - 100% MY opinion *
*****************************************************************
* The internet needs a lobotomy to recover from its lobotomy. *
*****************************************************************
Kevin Perry
Joe Grant Bell wrote:
> On a more serious note, yes, it's a very cool job. But you'd be
> surprised at how many godawful games we have to slog through before
> playing one that's actually fun. It's amazing how quickly playing
> games become real work, when the games you're playing all happen to be
> rotten.
>
> Not that I'm complaining. <g>
Amen.
The worst part (in addition to agonizing bad games) is that, when
the occasional gem appears, you can't spend as much time as you'd like
on it. The bad games must be heeded.
Still, it ain't breaking rocks for a living.
--
Kevin Perry
Editorial Team
Fog Studios--Happy Puppy--@ttitude Network
http://happypuppy.com (the #1 Games Site on the Internet)
Stephen C. Griffin
jgbe...@aol.com (Joe Grant Bell) wrote:
>Nevertheless, the merits of his column aren't really what was bugging
>me. Read the "What are are our review policies?" section in the front
>of any recent CGW to get a sense of what bugs me. Pretend you write
>for another magazine while you read it, and ask yourself what that
>open policy statement implies. It implies that competing magazines are
>a bunch of free-trip-taking, beta-reviewing, non-game-finishing louts
>who don't give a damn about quality. That makes me mad.
>Oh, and as far as those free trips are concerned... not every magazine
>has Ziff-Davis' financial backing. It's pretty lame to imply that
>there's some sort of corruption going on if other magazines do take
>free travel.
Joe,
I'm still not clear what your problem is with CGW stating their
policy. I for one like it. If any of the other gaming magazines
feels that it implies that they are "a bunch of free-trip taking,
beta-reviewing, non-game finishing louts..." then those magazines are
free to state their own policies to reassure us gamers otherwise.
What's keeping them from doing it? If not, then perhaps that speaks
for itself. That seems like their problem, not CGW's.
Is it arrogance to state a policy such as CGW's? Perhaps, but it is
also good PR and customer relations. Actually what should be
bothering you is not CGW's policy statement, bombastic as you think it
is, but the silence of other mags regarding this issue. Perhaps their
silence speaks louder than CGW's bombast?
Regards,
Steve
CGW Alan
"Johnny Wilson and Terry
Coleman wrote the best strat guide ever, IMHO, on Civilization... "
Actually, it was Alan Emrich, not Terry Coleman.
Alan Emrich
"When things are going badly in battle, the best tonic is to take one's
mind off one's own troubles by considering what a rotten time one's
opponent must be having."
--Lord Archibald P. Wavell, Other Men's Flowers, 1944
Visit the Krieg! Home Page at:
[http://members.aol.com/cgwalan/krieg-hp.htm]
Lord Soth
pami...@plains.nodak.edu (Patrick C Miller) wrote:
> It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it! ;-)
It may be nice, but there have to be some extremely
bad moments. Having to play an absolutely awful game
all the way through so you can give it a thorough review
must be hard sometimes. I get a small taste of that doing
my web site. But I can stop playing the game as soon
as I can get a good description of it.
--
Joseph Seymour (a.k.a. Lord Soth) lord...@ix.netcom.com
Maintainer of Lord Soth's Games on the Internet WWW site:
http://happypuppy.com/games/lordsoth/
Robin G. Kim
>>someone who writes these guides, how do you feel about them?
>
>game companies themselves. In other words, the documentation or lack
>thereof does not benefit me or my publisher: it's not as if we know
>what sort of docs a game will have beforehand,
I disagree. Poor documentation would tend to spur additional sales
of a strategy guide. However, since neither you nor your independent
publisher have any control over the documentation that comes with a game,
you are both, of course, entirely blameless.
steve b./cg strategy plus
In article <54v1f8$9...@uruguay.earthlink.net>, gum...@earthlink.net
says...
> I think it's still there. I will say that it seems to be almost
> universal in computer gaming magazines that if someone writes in with
> a conservative slant, every magazine will bash him/her to bits.
> Strategy + is the worst offender here (sorry, but that's the way it
> is...). So I don't think that Strategy + has ever been considered
> anything close to "quiet dignity".
Well, we all are part of the "liberal media elite."
Actually, if we ever had any wacky liberals write in, we'd make even more
fun of them. They're a pathetic bunch, trying to save the world through
government and litigation...
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
| Steve Bauman | sp...@together.net |
| Managing Editor | sba...@cdmag.com |
| Computer Games Strategy Plus| 2 millet st. |
| www.cdmag.com | richmond, vt 05477 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
steve b./cg strategy plus
In article <3276b302...@news.usit.net>, dbe...@usit.net says...
It is true, but unless it's a news story, you don't bash competitors in
print. It's in poor taste. You don't see Newsweek bashing Time. Or People
bashing US. Only when it's newsworthy, as in the case of
Newsweek's involvement in Admiral Boorda's suicide, or the Joe Klein
"Anonymous" incident that you see one magazine covering another. Would 60
Minutes do an expose on Dateline? Only if something like the GM exploding
car occurred.
If someone wanted to do an expose on what would appear to be a conflict
of interest, there could be a story there. I disagree - technically,
there was nothing illegal there (and a contributing editor at PC Gamer I
spoke with about it didn't see the conflict of interest). Unethical, yes.
Illegal, no.
However, CGW's not the worst. PC Gamer sent out cards to all of the game
companies with a doctored version of one of our subscription ads with the
tag line, "Don't accept imitations. It's what's inside that counts."
Timothy Burke
Hell, I'm glad it was mentioned: I thought Trotter's review was one of the
most astonishingly bald pieces of feathering one's own nest at the expense
of the readership that I've ever seen. It was indefensible and an absolute
breach of professional ethics. If you're a producer of a game or a product
directly related to that game, you don't write a review of it. It's that
simple, or should be. CGW went up a notch in my estimation for mentioning
it, though I too thought Ascendancy should have been on the Top 50
stinkers list, as well. (Or maybe a Top 10 Should Have Been Great But
Sucked list...)
steve b./cg strategy plus
In article <553qvs$h...@herald.concentric.net>, sg...@pop3.concentric.net
says...
> Is it arrogance to state a policy such as CGW's? Perhaps, but it is
> also good PR and customer relations. Actually what should be
> bothering you is not CGW's policy statement, bombastic as you think it
> is, but the silence of other mags regarding this issue. Perhaps their
> silence speaks louder than CGW's bombast?
Actually, I wish I had two pages to spend on such a "policy statement."
Instead, we use those two pages to talk about games. Their verbiage,
though, does make them sound high and mighty. Most magazines don't feel
the need to point out such policies - does Rolling State have such a
statement? Spin? Time? Newsweek? Entertainment Weekly? People?
We've never shied away from stating our policies - we don't review betas
that are missing features, though we do review gold-master CDs with
photocopied manuals, but always under the stipulation that we can talk
about any and all features in all capacities (ie, if it's buggy, we get
to say it's buggy). I believe this is CGW's policy as well.
We don't do "exclusive" reviews, where the implication is that in order
to get "exclusivity" you have to compromise editorial (ie who'd give you
an exclusive if you were going to tear something to shreads?)
We accept free travel from companies because we don't have a multi-
billion dollar corporation backing us. However, we only do it when
there's a story that WE want to run (I had to turn down two trips to
France about games we wouldn't cover).
If a company is holding a press day, who cares who pays for the plane
ticket? If CGW buys their own ticket to the event and covers it, great.
If Company X buys my ticket (since we're out on the East Coast, we can't
drive to most of the west coast events) so I can cover it, great. What's
the difference?
Gary E. Bloom
In article <MPG.cdff6d38...@news.sover.net>, sp...@together.net
(steve b./cg strategy plus) wrote:
>
> If someone wanted to do an expose on what would appear to be a conflict
> of interest, there could be a story there. I disagree - technically,
> there was nothing illegal there (and a contributing editor at PC Gamer I
> spoke with about it didn't see the conflict of interest). Unethical, yes.
> Illegal, no.
In any case, I took notice that Trotter wrote the strategy guide for Close
Combat but did *not* review it for PC Gamer. Guess they learned their
lesson.
--
Regards, Gary
Adam G. Unikowsky
CGW Alan wrote:
>
> "Johnny Wilson and Terry
> Coleman wrote the best strat guide ever, IMHO, on Civilization... "
>
>
> Alan Emrich
>
> "When things are going badly in battle, the best tonic is to take one's
> mind off one's own troubles by considering what a rotten time one's
> opponent must be having."
> --Lord Archibald P. Wavell, Other Men's Flowers, 1944
>
> Visit the Krieg! Home Page at:
> [http://members.aol.com/cgwalan/krieg-hp.htm]
Oops... Sorry Alan!
Daniel Drumm
Joe Grant Bell (jgbe...@aol.com) wrote:
: Number 5 isn't *that* hard to figure out, however. I've had a real
: affection for CGW since my earliest days of computer gaming, and it
: hurts to see it turn into a refuge of half-baked editorializing and
: shameless self-promotion.
: Comments are welcome, except from Patrick Miller, who posts on this
: group way too much as it is. <g>
I agree. I had the very first edition of CGW. I used to truck every week,
and get the latest edition. I remember when the HOF was created.
Since then, Denny Atkin writes really terse pieces on flight sims, the
sellout to Ziff-Davis has made the magazine a glossy shadow of it's former
self.
I remember IN-DEPTH reviews, game replays (remember those?) and articles
that previewed games thoughtfully.
It's still the only major mag that does Wargames justice, but the ads are
way up and the writing is way down.
--
--
Daniel G. Drumm
dr...@tezcat.com - PGP Key via WWW
http://www.tezcat.com/~drmm
Patrick C Miller
Lord Soth (lord...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: It may be nice, but there have to be some extremely
: bad moments. Having to play an absolutely awful game
: all the way through so you can give it a thorough review
: must be hard sometimes. I get a small taste of that doing
: my web site. But I can stop playing the game as soon
: as I can get a good description of it.
I was going to mention that, but I didn't want to come off looking like
those super models who complain about how tough it is to wear expensive
clothes and get paid huge sums of money to have their pictures taken in
exotic locations all around the world.
Come to think of it, no one would ever mistake me for a super model, so
here goes: Don't hate me because I get free games and get paid to play
them. It's a demanding, tough, thankless job. Really. Seriously. I'm
not kidding. Stop laughing, dammit!
*****************************
Patrick C. Miller
pami...@plains.NoDak.edu
*****************************
CGW Alan
"Is it arrogance to state a policy such as CGW's? Perhaps, but it is
also good PR and customer relations. Actually what should be
bothering you is not CGW's policy statement, bombastic as you think it
is, but the silence of other mags regarding this issue. Perhaps their
silence speaks louder than CGW's bombast?"
This makes me think of the American elections when Bob Dole says, "Ask
anyone, Republican or Democrat, with Bob Dole a promise made is a promise
kept. My word is my bond." And then White House staff attacks that remark
as Clinton-bashing!!
Alan Emrich, bemused CGW type
CGW Alan
For the record:
Prior to the departure of Russell Sipe as Publisher of CGW, it was the
magazine's policy to NEVER mention a competing magazine. And I don't
recall, in the mag's first 11 years or so, that it ever did.
Alan Emrich, former editorial staffer at CGW
TVspace
> I don't think it's right for
>CGW, or any other magazine, to point out these indiscretions... As I
>said earlier, Time and Newsweek never take pot shots at one another,
>because it would be such a tasteless thing to do
Joe, I _guarantee_ you if Newsweek had let Joe Klein review Primary Colors
that it would have been all over Time, and every other news outlet in the
country. It is news, and it is unethical. I won't touch PC Gamer with a
10 foot pole, I consider their credibility to be worthless.
Patrick
**********************************************************************
VOTE HARVEY GANTT ---------------- US SENATE
*********************************************************************
Edward Franks
Joe Grant Bell says...
[Snip]
> In fact, I don't think *anyone* would argue that it's good to allow
> someone with a vested interest in a product to review that product.
> That wasn't my point... my point was, I don't think it's right for
> CGW, or any other magazine, to point out these indiscretions... As I
> said earlier, Time and Newsweek never take pot shots at one another,
> heat for it.
[Snip]
Then who should tell us that someone was 'indiscrete' (unethical
in my book)? If any magazine does this I want to know so that I can
make my own judgements about the articles.
Edward
--
Edward Franks
efr...@msn.com
xy...@ponyexpress.net
-==(UDIC)==- Fortran Dragon
Microsoft Certified Product Specialist: Windows 3.1
"Ain't I a stinker?" - Bugs Bunny
Gary E. Bloom
>(steve b./cg strategy plus) wrote:
>> Actually, if we ever had any wacky liberals write in, we'd make even more
>> fun of them. They're a pathetic bunch, trying to save the world through
>> government and litigation...
If nothing else we're getting full disclosure on the *politics* of game
magazine (and former game magazine) writers. Newt's nerds. ;-)
--
Regards, Gary
oleg
In article <5558hv$b...@ssbunews.ih.lucent.com>, op...@marconi.ih.att.com
says...
Except insofar as Prima publishes a number of 'official' guides which
are undoubtedly licensed from the game makers and whose sales contribute
to the game makers' bottom line.
I find the whole strategy guide vs. the manual thing abhorrent. As
someone who has been using computers since the early eighties I
can see the decline in quality manuals that is occuring lately.
Undoubtedly strategy guide sales have at least something to do
with it.
Also, why is it that trade paperback guides are priced at $20 bucks
a piece when general market trade papers are about 2/3 of that and
often have more pages?
Just my gripe. Game companies should remember that sometimes the
manual makes a difference between a sale and a pirated copy that
gets played for a few days and then wiped off.
--
Oleg
DoD 388
Virago 700 "V'ger"
Robert Merritt
On moon date 27 Oct 1996 16:28:22 GMT, jfl...@u.washington.edu (John F.
Lee) wrote:
>Unfortunately, much as I love CGW, I must,to some extent, agree. Look,
>guys, your magazine is great, but so is everybody else's. It's sad that
>there's only one magazine, really (Next Generation), that doesn't slam its
>competition, and CGW is the worst offender.
But Next Generation is sooooo flighty that you can never trust its reviews.
Super Mario 64 the best game ever,, ha!
Rob Merritt
Might and Magic lives at http://www.jagunet.com/~robertm/homm.html
Jason Townsend
In article <55512s$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cgw...@aol.com says...
>
>"Johnny Wilson and Terry
>Coleman wrote the best strat guide ever, IMHO, on Civilization... "
>
> Actually, it was Alan Emrich, not Terry Coleman.
>
> Alan Emrich
Heh. False modesty aside, rome on 640k a day was great.
I want to read that moo1 one.
--
Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.
---------------------Jason Townsend tow...@atcon.com
Adam G. Unikowsky
This would imply that Russell Sipe's (sad) departure signified a change
in policy at CGW...is this true? Did that contribute to your leaving the
magazine?
Adam
RDClark
> Let's say a game company sends me a gold master and says
> "Hey, this is the final. Review it." My editors tell me
> "It's a final, so treat it like a boxed product." I
> therefore review it as a final. Wherein lies the problem,
> when this is a gold master of the soon-to-be-packaged
> version? Does the software company benefit from sending me
> an incomplete product and telling me to rip it to shreds?
> Of course not. They're not going to send me a beta for
> review, because that only hurts their product. They aren't
> going to give me the go-ahead for a review until the
> product is in its final state.
>
> Obviously, if we were blatantly reviewing games from
> non-final betas, it would be a different matter. But can
> you imagine the heat a magazine would get from game
> publishers if it started reviewing betas as finals?
> Everyone would stop sending them games for review.
Here's your fallacy: that the important relationship is the one between
the magazines and the game publishers. That relationship *should* be
adversarial. The magazines represent the readers, and it's their trust --
not the publishers' -- that matters.
>
> Just one example of a policy statement that sounds mighty
> good, but doesn't mean anything.
It means plenty. It means I, as a reader, can trust that the reviewer
isn't sleeping with the game designer. It means that the magazine cares
more about its own journalistic integrity than it does about getting a
"scoop."
There is far too little objectivity and far too much conflict of interest
in the computer game industry as it is. It's a trend that we can expect
to continue and accelerate as more and more money from multinational
entertainment conglomerates infuses the field. Reviewers are gamers'
advocates one day, and game designers the next. Everybody wants to sell me
something.
At least CGW understands the concept of professional ethics and tries, on
a corporate level, to maintain a position on the moral high ground, even
if there is an earthquake in progress and the ground is continually
shifting. I give them credit for trying.
|-------------------------------------|
|-------RichC (rdc...@aol.com)-------|
|---reporting from the cardiac ward---|
|-------------------------------------|
Bigjohn
In article <54u0hv$2m...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, jgbe...@aol.com (Joe Grant Bell)
wrote:
> As a freelance writer in the gaming industry, I have become
> increasingly miffed over the last two years at the number of slams,
> put-downs and outright insults coming from Computer Gaming World's
> editoral staff, usually targeted at other magazines. In the past, I've
> pointed out these insults and snide comments on this newsgroup. Why?
> Hey, what can I say... you can't argue with catharsis.
Catharsis is a good thing. When I'm in need, I just toss my opinions at anyone
who'll argue with me...*grin*.
>
> I no longer read CGW, as I feel that in its current bloated, ad-filled
> state it's akin to Computer Shopper (albeit without Computer Shopper's
> valuable editorial content). However, a friend recently showed me the
> last page of the latest CGW, wherein Martin Cirulis takes a cheap shot
> at both strategy guide writers and other magazines.
I have NEVER found CGW to be a magazine worthy of my dinero. I was a longtime
subscriber to Computer Game Review, but CGW bought them out just after I renewed
this year. Believe me, I gave the replacement magazine a hard look and said "Oh
my GAWD! This SUCKS! They've killed the good one and left the rotten
deformation of a magazine live!" (I really said that! You can ask my wife!)
> I have no idea whether the incident he's referring to is true or
> false, but regardless, it's yet one more casual insult directed toward
> CGW's competitors. In the spirit of Cirulis' "best and worst" theme,
> here's a few of my "worst moments" from reading recent CGWs.
If they can't buy up the competition, I guess they'll just slander them out of
business? I really wonder about this. Ziff magazines do tend to wax a bit
pompous, but their quality is usually above reproach! CGW has ten times the
"Pomposity" and only ONE ONETHOUSANDTH the quality of the typical ZD mag.
> 1. Watching CGW tirelessly slander the reputation of their competitors
> (not naming any names, mind you) instead of shoring up their own,
> declining editorial content.
>
> 2. Observing more and more ads creep into the magazine, and watching
> the editorial content simultaneously take on a glossy, over-produced
> look that makes it hard to separate from the ads.
See above statement. Their quality sucks, their CD's SUCK, and their reviews
are something of the quality and throughness I'd have put into something when I
was in 7th grade. I once made the mistake of buying something they recommended,
only to find a thorough review in CGR later... I'd have been better served
tossing that $30 into the crapper.
> 3. Wondering where the quiet dignity and carefully considered
> editorials of the 1980s went.
>
> 4. Reading Martin Cirulis' bombastic diatribe, and wondering who
> decided to let him have his own column.
>
> 5. Wondering why I even care enough to write this.
>
> Number 5 isn't *that* hard to figure out, however. I've had a real
> affection for CGW since my earliest days of computer gaming, and it
> hurts to see it turn into a refuge of half-baked editorializing and
> shameless self-promotion.
>
> Comments are welcome, except from Patrick Miller, who posts on this
> group way too much as it is. <g>
I cannot agree with your "like" of that magazine at any point in history. But,
since we're both human beings (I hope!) I suppose you ought to have your own
opinion. After all, I insist on having mine!
> _______________
> Joe Grant Bell |
> __________________________________________________
> Yes, it's AOL. Stop laughing. It's a long story. |
> __________________________________________________
>
John Stegenga
"My opinions are my own, and not influenced by any current issue, illegal
foreign contribution, or the maniacle socialist whims of my spouse. Then again,
I'm not Bill Clinton either!"
DOLE/KEMP 96! -- "The money belongs to the people who earn it!"
Did you know that the Democrats want to take a 15% tax on all existing pension
funds? Even your "Tax Exempt 401K"? It's true! And Robert Reich want's
legislation that forces fund managers to invest your money in things like
welfare housing...
Adam G. Unikowsky
Joe Grant Bell wrote:
>
> >Here's your fallacy: that the important relationship is the one between
> >the magazines and the game publishers. That relationship *should* be
> >adversarial. The magazines represent the readers, and it's their trust --
> >not the publishers' -- that matters.
>
> copies, vs. reviewing from gold masters with photocopied instructions,
> affects the relationship between magazine, publisher and reader. It's
> a review either way.
And so does CGW. CGW _does_ review gold master copies of games- Denny Atkin
said so a couple of months back. The review for Longbow was from the gold
disk. When CGW says its review policy, it differentiates itself from
magazines that _do_ review betas. And there are magazines like this; I was
recently surprised to read in "Joystick" magazine (the top french magazine)
that they candidly admitted to reviewing betas! They said that they also do
not finish games- it would take "too much time" - and another reason they
didn't finish games was that the endings were not included in the beta!
Although you may be interpreting that CGW is trying to demonstrate a
superiority complex (and I would rather agree with you), that is not really
the point- they are, indeed, differentiating themselves from numerous other
game mags, some which I haven't mentioned here.
>
> > It means I, as a reader, can trust that the reviewer
> >isn't sleeping with the game designer.
>
> If I review a game and slam it, but that game happens to be a gold
> master instead of a boxed copy, have I slammed the game any less? If a
> magazine only reviews games when they appear as boxed copies, does
> that somehow prove that the magazine isn't "sleeping with the game
> designer"? If so, how?
>
See above.
> >It means that the magazine cares
> >more about its own journalistic integrity than it does about getting a
> >"scoop."
>
> Once again, I can't stress it enough... a gold master is the exact
> same game that appears inside a shrink-wrapped box. What journalistic
> integrity is sacrificed if I review a version of the game that doesn't
> come in pretty wrappings?
>
>
Again, none...
> _______________
> Joe Grant Bell |
> __________________________________________________
> Yes, it's AOL. Stop laughing. It's a long story. |
> __________________________________________________
Adam G. Unikowsky (md...@musica.mcgill.ca)
Led Mirage
In article <555f5n$3h...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
>the final. Review it." My editors tell me "It's a final, so treat it
>like a boxed product." I therefore review it as a final. Wherein lies
>the problem, when this is a gold master of the soon-to-be-packaged
>version? Does the software company benefit from sending me an
>incomplete product and telling me to rip it to shreds? Of course not.
>They're not going to send me a beta for review, because that only
>hurts their product. They aren't going to give me the go-ahead for a
>review until the product is in its final state.
>
>Obviously, if we were blatantly reviewing games from non-final betas,
>it would be a different matter. But can you imagine the heat a
>magazine would get from game publishers if it started reviewing betas
>as finals? Everyone would stop sending them games for review.
I think CGW had a very bad incident where the game company sent them a
beta, but the reviewer thought it was a gold-master (or something), and
proceeded to tear the game apart. Of course the game company was livid.
So from then on, they made the policy to review only shrink wrapped final
products.
Timothy Burke
> In fact, I don't think *anyone* would argue that it's good to allow
> someone with a vested interest in a product to review that product.
> That wasn't my point... my point was, I don't think it's right for
> CGW, or any other magazine, to point out these indiscretions... As I
> said earlier, Time and Newsweek never take pot shots at one another,
> because it would be such a tasteless thing to do. They'd take a lot of
> heat for it. Similarly, I don't think there's any place for veiled
> critique of other magazines in CGW.
Why is this tasteless, actually? You've been making that point throughout,
but if Time or Newsweek had a major ethical lapse, I think it would be
inappropriate for their competitor to ignore it. In fact, to insist that
they should ignore it is to promote a vision of industry collusion, where
all the old boys rally round the flag when one of their own badly
missteps. For example, it seems to me to be wholly appropriate for
Newsweek to have critiqued Time's decision to darken OJ Simpson's image
for their cover picture at the time of his arrest, or for Time to raise
questions about Newsweek's involvement in the Boorda suicide.
Trotter's review of Ascendancy seems to me to be a similarly "public"
misstep within the world of gaming, and wholly appropriate for discussion
in competiting magazines.
CGW Alan
"I find the whole strategy guide vs. the manual thing abhorrent. As
someone who has been using computers since the early eighties I
can see the decline in quality manuals that is occuring lately.
Undoubtedly strategy guide sales have at least something to do
with it."
You and me both. I wrote an article about it that I've offered to the
various computer gaming magazines and they wouldn't touch... If you
want to set off a few sparks, it's up on the web at:
[http://members.aol.com/cgwalan/decline.htm]
Now THERE'S a topic for you!
Alan Emrich
Gregg Gallagher
On 30 Oct 1996 11:02:23 -0500, cgw...@aol.com (CGW Alan) wrote:
>"I find the whole strategy guide vs. the manual thing abhorrent. As
>someone who has been using computers since the early eighties I
>can see the decline in quality manuals that is occuring lately.
>Undoubtedly strategy guide sales have at least something to do
>with it."
>
> You and me both. I wrote an article about it that I've offered to the
>various computer gaming magazines and they wouldn't touch... If you
>want to set off a few sparks, it's up on the web at:
<snip>
Parallels the similar decline in size/quality of productivity
applications documentation. Always struck me as ironic how Microsoft
Office's printed documentation has withered away, while Microsoft
Press' books have blossomed...
Gregg
Steven C. Den Beste
Jason Townsend wrote:
>
> In article <55512s$8...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cgw...@aol.com says...
> >
> >"Johnny Wilson and Terry
> >Coleman wrote the best strat guide ever, IMHO, on Civilization... "
> >
> > Actually, it was Alan Emrich, not Terry Coleman.
> >
> > Alan Emrich
>
> Heh. False modesty aside, rome on 640k a day was great.
>
> I want to read that moo1 one.
The "Master of Orion" and "Master of Magic" strat-guides (both by Emrich
et. al.) were by far the best I've ever seen. It was a sad day when
Emrich announced he would write no others.
The "Ascendancy" strat-guide (by Trotter et. al.) was *easily* the
worst. (Which gets us back to the original theme of this thread.)
RDClark
Me:
>>Here's your fallacy: that the important relationship is the one between
>>the magazines and the game publishers. That relationship *should* be
>>adversarial. The magazines represent the readers, and it's their trust
--
>>not the publishers' -- that matters.
You:
> Huh? I honestly fail to see how the reviewing games from
> boxed game copies, vs. reviewing from gold masters with
> photocopied instructions, affects the relationship between
> magazine, publisher and reader. It's a review either way.
You quoted me out of context.
I was responding this from you, and it's what I quoted preceding the
above:
> But can
> you imagine the heat a magazine would get from game
> publishers if it started reviewing betas as finals?
> Everyone would stop sending them games for review.
I'm not suggesting magazines start reviewing betas as finals. I'm pointing
out that your vision of the dire consequences thereof is completely off
the mark. The game publishers' feelings should not be a factor in any
decision a journal of review makes. No magazine should make *any*
decision based on whether it might cause the publishers to stop sending
them free games.
The reason magazines should not review "betas as finals" is because it's
lying, and it's wrong. Why does there need to be another reason?
Denny Atkin
dr...@tezcat.com (Daniel Drumm) wrote:
>Since then, Denny Atkin writes really terse pieces on flight sims
Terse? Hmmm... Could you please elaborate on that terse criticism? :-)
Seriously, I'm very interested in hearing what you don't find in my
articles that you'd like to see. I'm here to please the readers...
CGW Alan
"This would imply that Russell Sipe's (sad) departure signified a change
in policy at CGW...is this true? Did that contribute to your leaving the
magazine?"
A change in publisher often begets changes in policy. CGW is on its
third publisher now, I believe, and so changes continue... But changes
occured
even when Russ was at the helm -- so some are "forces of nature" in the
business, and some are "forces of will" of the publisher. It's sorting out
which is which that is the tricky part.
No, I left the magazine to do online stuff, and now work at Interplay
in their newly formed Strategy Game division. I'm still on good terms all
around, I would say, with CGW.
Gary Hoermann
Martin Cirulis wrote:
> Goering wrote for the Munich TImes does that mean it would be unprofessional
> to mention that WW2 thing? This is why I went after you for not knowing what
No, NO, a thousand times NO! Martin, you've got to get with the
program. In the ng's, this type of analogy simply *must* refer to
Hitler! You're bucking years and years of tradition here. Sheesh!..
;)
Joel Hulsey
>"I find the whole strategy guide vs. the manual thing abhorrent. As
>someone who has been using computers since the early eighties I
>can see the decline in quality manuals that is occuring lately.
>Undoubtedly strategy guide sales have at least something to do
>with it."
> You and me both. I wrote an article about it that I've offered to the
>various computer gaming magazines and they wouldn't touch... If you
>want to set off a few sparks, it's up on the web at:
> [http://members.aol.com/cgwalan/decline.htm]
> Now THERE'S a topic for you!
> Alan Emrich
I've been a proponent of better documentation for a couple of years
now. Remember when you got a real hefty manual with your game like the
ones that came with F19 Stealth Fighter, Falcon 3.0, F15 Strike Eagle
3, etc? And those were days where the customer base wasn't NEARLY as
big as today. More titles are selling now, but the manuals get smaller
and smaller. Sierra has gone whole hog and given gamers NO manual at
all! The reason? It's not prima's fault. I applaud them for having
great business sense and capitalizing on a great opportunity. The
problem is with gamers themselves. If nobody bought these strategy
guides, there would be no demand for them. Then gamers wouldn't know
how to play these games and start returning them or not buying them in
the first place. The companies would get the idea pretty quickly. As
long as there is a demand, things will stay the same or only get
worse. We are our worst enemy in this regard....
Joel Hulsey
CGW Alan
"I feel that your defintion of a good manual is too lax:
beyond "what buttons to push," I feel that the manual (and not the
guide) of a strategy game should specify the "rules of the game,"
just as you would in a board game. "
That would be nice, but most boardgame companies haven't
perfected rules writing in 37 years. You expect computer game
companies to suddenly acheive this? I'd settle for an accurate
description of how to use the interface and what elements of the
game affect what others. I can usually figure things out from there.
Martin Cirulis
Joe:
Again, your desire to see everybody play nice is great but. . .don't you see
this has nothing bloody to do with one magazine picking on another? If
Goering wrote for the Munich TImes does that mean it would be unprofessional
to mention that WW2 thing? This is why I went after you for not knowing what
the original issue was about. You view it as incidental to what I wrote,
whereas I view it as the only thing to be discussed.
I was asked for a low point in computer gaming and I gave one. It was a low
point for every gamer who trusted that review. It could have been published
by God him or herself in CGW itself and it wouldn't have made a bit of
difference to me. I was asked to comment on the industry in my column, not
turn a blind eye. Hedging a review to make extra money for the reviewer is an
industry issue and I dare anybody to convince me otherwise. It really amazes
me that this point is being overlooked in favour of reminicing about how nice
everything used to be. I am also amazed that your friend, who thought it was
so important for you to see 3 lines of text in my dinky little column, didn't
rush to you last year with the dubious Ascendancy review and the strat guide
for it and say, "Hey Joe, this guy could make every reviewer who does strat
guides look dirty by association if he keeps this up. Get on that newsgroup
and make a long post so everybody knows where you stand and this is just a
case of one bad egg".
Strange priorities.
And, to be honest, that is what bent my sprocket. The utter missing the
point in favour of some weird "no dirty laundry issue". You never offended me
personally, Joe, just professionally. I only replied at all because I
thought I would try and point out what I was getting at for those who
only saw a catty attack on another magazine. (Though your big paragraph on
your strat guide writing nicely complimented my point that writers are never
responsible for a company putting out a crappy set of doc. The blame is at
the game publishers feet.) The reviewer of Ascendancy was guilty of
grossly inflating a rating for his own benefit, NOT of simply writing a Strat
guide. OK?
If you believe being polite is more important than opposing that kind of crap
at every opportunity then I guess we must agree to disagree about journalistic
priorities. As for the "bad" language...what can I say? Must not be cut from
that "debate club" cloth. Darn!
Take care,
Martin E. Cirulis
PS- Alan, nobody owes you, Russell and the rest of the old gang much more
than I. Without the work you guys did and the way you did it during the '80's
I wouldn't be half the computer gamer I am and certainly not taking it this
seriously. To me the only lapse in the CGW look back has been the fact Chris
and you were barely mentioned. Unfortunately even had this whole incident
taken place 8 years ago, I would have done the same thing and probably walked
if the lines had been pulled in the name of "good taste".
PPS- And the real problem with review non-final code is that you must take
the word of the company on what the finished thing will look like or admit in
your review that you have no clear idea what the consumer is going to get but
here is your review (as opposed to preview) anyway. This French magazine
people are referring to may as well say in the masthead; "Our concern for
giving accurate information to the consumer is far less than our obsession
with getting the consumer to buy our mag because we are able to list 'reviews'
on the cover 2 months ahead of the competition."
PPPS- To the little guy who critiqued my column layout. . .don't you feel
goofy pointing out stuff like that while grown-ups are discussing important
things? Kind of like giggling about someone's accent in court.
As for Outpost, yes, the greatest tragedy was that the very cool (for an
initial alpha) demo I saw and wrote about was most of the final game a year
and a half later and somehow they had even gotten those limited parts to stop
working. God bless Sierra.
Drew Fudenberg
CGW Alan wrote:
Hi Alan. I agree with what you say (in the web essay you alerted us to)
about the decline of strategy guides,and the impossibility of writing a
good guide based on an early alpha, and I think you said it well,
but I feel that your defintion of a good manual is too lax:
beyond "what buttons to push," I feel that the manual (and not the
guide) of a strategy game should specify the "rules of the game,"
just as you would in a board game. For example, I expect the -manual-
or some other item in the PzG box or online help to tell me the
statitsics of every kind of unit, and I also expect the manual to at
explain how combat is resolved. In Civ2, I wouldnt expect the manual to
tell me how to play, but I would expect it and not the strategy guide to
tell me the rules that determine when new citizens are "born" unhappy.
This still leaves room for lots of tables in strategy guides,
of the sort that you'r eknown for, like hit points/$ and so on;
these are derived from the rules, as opposed to being part of the rules
themselves.
--
Drew Fudenberg
email: fude...@fas.harvard.edu
http://fudenberg.fas.harvard.edu
Lou
Gregg Gallagher wrote:
>
> Parallels the similar decline in size/quality of productivity
> applications documentation. Always struck me as ironic how Microsoft
> Office's printed documentation has withered away, while Microsoft
> Press' books have blossomed...
>
> Gregg
No doubt. Why give "free" documentation away with the hideously expensive
software when you can get even more money by selling the user's guide
seperately?
Lou
tvs...@aol.com
>As for Outpost, yes, the greatest tragedy was that the very cool (for an
>initial alpha) demo I saw and wrote about was most of the final game a
year
>and a half later and somehow they had even gotten those limited parts to
stop
>working. God bless Sierra.
They must have run it through their patented FNC (fun-neutralizing
compiler) that they've been recently applying to their Front-Page Sports
series :-).
**********************************************************************
VOTE HARVEY GANTT ---------------- US SENATE
*********************************************************************
oleg
In article <5561ms$2q...@news.doit.wisc.edu>, jgbe...@aol.com says...
>
>Just for the record, I never said I supported the idea of letting a
>guy review the same game he did a strategy guide on... I'd never do
>that myself, and even if I wanted to, the magazine I write for would
>definitely have a problem with it.
>
>In fact, I don't think *anyone* would argue that it's good to allow
>someone with a vested interest in a product to review that product.
>That wasn't my point... my point was, I don't think it's right for
>CGW, or any other magazine, to point out these indiscretions... As I
>said earlier, Time and Newsweek never take pot shots at one another,
>because it would be such a tasteless thing to do. They'd take a lot of
>heat for it. Similarly, I don't think there's any place for veiled
>critique of other magazines in CGW.
Publishing a review of a product for which one has written a
strategy guide goes beyond unprofessional and into unethical.
Presumably neither Time nor Newsweek would permit something like
that to happen on their pages, and if it did, their competition would
be quite justified in pointing it out.
>_______________
>Joe Grant Bell |
>__________________________________________________
>Yes, it's AOL. Stop laughing. It's a long story. |
>__________________________________________________
>
--
John F. Lee
In article <Martin_Cirul...@mindlink.bc.ca>,
Martin Cirulis <Martin_...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>
>PPPS- To the little guy who critiqued my column layout. . .
A few points:
1) Is the first line the only line in any post that you read?
2) It takes a big man to make a statement like the one above. Couldn't
possibly be petty, could you?
3) 80 columns is the standard. Most folks read their USENET articles at
80 columns. Therefore, posting a message that exceeds that standard is
sort of like putting out a modified (not letterboxed) movie with the
important parts cut out.
>don't you feel
>goofy pointing out stuff like that while grown-ups are discussing important
>things? Kind of like giggling about someone's accent in court.
Bad analogy. It's more like complaining when the guy starts mumbbling too
low for the court to hear.
> As for Outpost, yes, the greatest tragedy was that the very cool (for an
>initial alpha) demo I saw and wrote about was most of the final game a year
>and a half later and somehow they had even gotten those limited parts to stop
>working. God bless Sierra.
Mmm-hmm. Pots and kettles, eh?
Two words, Martin: Grow Up.
--
John F. Lee / jfl...@u.washington.edu
Still a fan of Daisy Dukes and Wonder Woman.
Joel Murray
Gary Hoermann <hoer...@phoenix.net> wrote:
>No, NO, a thousand times NO! Martin, you've got to get with the
>program. In the ng's, this type of analogy simply *must* refer to
>Hitler! You're bucking years and years of tradition here. Sheesh!..
>;)
PMFJI, I've read that there's a name for that analogy, which in some ng's
FAQ, I understand, is enough to halt a thread. Unfortunately, I don't know
the name of the analogy. Can anyone help me?
____________________________________________________________________
Ligneous and petrous projectiles can potentially fracture my osseous
structure, but pejorative appellations will forever remain innocuous.
Thomas Neil Franklin
I have subscribed to CGW for 4 years, but they won't be getting
a renewal from me. What a bunch of sell-outs!
--
Tom Franklin
University of Virginia School of Medicine
Internet: tn...@Virginia.edu
Afterburner
> "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
>involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many
>groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever
>mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in
>progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an
>upper bound on thread length in those groups.
The only problem I have with this is that sometimes (rarely, I'll
admit) the comparison is actually valid.
Afterburner
Steven C. Den Beste
Joel Murray wrote:
>
> Gary Hoermann <hoer...@phoenix.net> wrote:
>
> >No, NO, a thousand times NO! Martin, you've got to get with the
> >program. In the ng's, this type of analogy simply *must* refer to
> >Hitler! You're bucking years and years of tradition here. Sheesh!..
> >;)
>
> PMFJI, I've read that there's a name for that analogy, which in some ng's
> FAQ, I understand, is enough to halt a thread. Unfortunately, I don't know
> the name of the analogy. Can anyone help me?
You're referring to "Godwin's Law", which reads as follows:
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many
groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever
mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in
progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an
upper bound on thread length in those groups.
There's a nice article about it written by Mike Godwin at:
http://www.hotwired.com/wired/2.10/departments/idees.fortes/godwin.if.html
Greg, Anne, and Tom Ricketts
What, pray tell, are you talking about? Greg.
Daniel Drumm
Denny Atkin (den...@pacbell.net) wrote:
Denny,
While I appreciate you writing for net games, and trying to stay on top of
flight sims, I am saddened by the amount of copy writers put in CGW now.
You could write a 3 page article on Warbirds alone. I get through maybe
three typeface columns and it's the end of the article. That's not an
article, it's a blurb.
I just remember when I could open a page of CGW and see an entire page of
words and no pictures. Now, the writing has the brevity of a WWW Page.
I'm hoping to visit my friend Chris Martin (Smut from WB) in Baltimore
soon, and he now works for Jane's. I read and see SO MUCH happening in
online flight sims, and since your the FS guy, I am astonished by just how
little actual writing is in CGW now.
--
--
Daniel G. Drumm
dr...@tezcat.com - PGP Key via WWW
http://www.tezcat.com/~drmm
steve b./cg strategy plus
In article <tburke1-3010...@mac08.pearson.swarthmore.edu>,
tbu...@cc.swarthmore.edu says...
>
> Trotter's review of Ascendancy seems to me to be a similarly "public"
> misstep within the world of gaming, and wholly appropriate for discussion
> in competiting magazines.
OK, but they didn't mention anyone by name, but instead made a passing
remark without having the cajones to actually name names and magazines.
That'd be like Time saying, "Some other big magazine needed to darken OJs
image to make him look nasty."
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
| Steve Bauman | sp...@together.net |
| Managing Editor | sba...@cdmag.com |
| Computer Games Strategy Plus| 2 millet st. |
| www.cdmag.com | richmond, vt 05477 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
steve b./cg strategy plus
In article <Martin_Cirul...@mindlink.bc.ca>,
Martin_...@mindlink.bc.ca says...
> the game publishers feet.) The reviewer of Ascendancy was guilty of
> grossly inflating a rating for his own benefit, NOT of simply writing a Strat
> guide. OK?
> If you believe being polite is more important than opposing that kind of crap
> at every opportunity then I guess we must agree to disagree about journalistic
> priorities. As for the "bad" language...what can I say? Must not be cut from
> that "debate club" cloth. Darn!
I think the point that Joe was making was that you didn't actually report
the incident - just sniped at it. Why not name names? Do an expose?
Report on it? If it's news, go with it.
Instead, it was just a nasty swipe.
steve b./cg strategy plus
In article <geb-291096...@evt-pm0-ip24.halcyon.com>,
g...@softworlds.com says...
> In article <55530e$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cgw...@aol.com (CGW Alan) wrote:
> > This makes me think of the American elections when Bob Dole says, "Ask
> > anyone, Republican or Democrat, with Bob Dole a promise made is a promise
> > kept. My word is my bond." And then White House staff attacks that remark
> > as Clinton-bashing!!
> >> Actually, if we ever had any wacky liberals write in, we'd make even more
> >> fun of them. They're a pathetic bunch, trying to save the world through
> >> government and litigation...
>
> If nothing else we're getting full disclosure on the *politics* of game
> magazine (and former game magazine) writers. Newt's nerds. ;-)
Actually, as if it matters, I'm a card carrying pathetic liberal. I just
lack the law degree that would make me truly happy...
But I'm an equal opportunity offender.
Robin G. Kim
Daniel Drumm <dr...@tezcat.com> wrote:
>Denny Atkin (den...@pacbell.net) wrote:
>: dr...@tezcat.com (Daniel Drumm) wrote:
>:
>: >Since then, Denny Atkin writes really terse pieces on flight sims
>:
>: Terse? Hmmm... Could you please elaborate on that terse criticism? :-)
>:
>: Seriously, I'm very interested in hearing what you don't find in my
>: articles that you'd like to see. I'm here to please the readers...
>
>Denny,
I'm not Denny, but I am genuinely interested in understanding what's making
you unhappy. I read your post but I still don't get it. I'd appreciate
it if you could elaborate further.
>While I appreciate you writing for net games, and trying to stay on top of
>flight sims, I am saddened by the amount of copy writers put in CGW now.
Here, you seem to be making a general statement that the flight sim
articles are too short, with a possible emphasis on networked games.
>You could write a 3 page article on Warbirds alone. I get through maybe
>three typeface columns and it's the end of the article. That's not an
>article, it's a blurb.
Here, you say Warbirds in particular has been given short shrift.
>I just remember when I could open a page of CGW and see an entire page of
>words and no pictures. Now, the writing has the brevity of a WWW Page.
Now you're back to complaining about all articles in general. If the length
of the text were the same, would you still complain about the pictures?
>I'm hoping to visit my friend Chris Martin (Smut from WB) in Baltimore
>soon, and he now works for Jane's. I read and see SO MUCH happening in
>online flight sims,
Is your only beef with the amount of space allocated to online flight sims?
>and since your the FS guy, I am astonished by just how
>little actual writing is in CGW now.
When you say "writing," can I interpret that to be equivalent to word
counts? If so, I'll leave it to Denny to say whether article lengths
have been shrinking in general over time. My memory is imperfect, but
I believe he's said in other threads in the past that this has not been
happening.
oleg
In article <327c7ce5...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
ggall...@worldnet.att.net says...
>>someone who has been using computers since the early eighties I
>>can see the decline in quality manuals that is occuring lately.
>>Undoubtedly strategy guide sales have at least something to do
>>with it."
>>
>> You and me both. I wrote an article about it that I've offered to the
>>various computer gaming magazines and they wouldn't touch... If you
>>want to set off a few sparks, it's up on the web at:
>
>
>
>Parallels the similar decline in size/quality of productivity
>applications documentation. Always struck me as ironic how Microsoft
>Office's printed documentation has withered away, while Microsoft
>Press' books have blossomed...
>
>
>Gregg
>
Actually that seems to be the case with most popular software these
days. The notable exceptions that I have ran across are Photoshop
(though I haven't gotten my upgrade to 4.0 yet, so I cannot vouch
for the current incarnation), and Fractal Design Painter, the manual
for which has actually improved tremendously in the current version.
Both programs have a plethora of aftermarket books available for them
but it didn't stop the publishers from doing credible job on the manuals.
I suggest that all people who are as annoyed with worthless manuals as
I am put their money where their mouths are and actually CALL the
publishers when poor documentation has stopped you from purchasing the
program or has caused you to re-evaluate further purchases from
the publisher. They really have no way of knowing what the customers
think unless we tell them.
grundman
What does a professional game reiveiwers job pay anyway? Enough to make
a living on (25, 30g's year)?
Grundman
--
"Take your stinking hands off me, you damn dirty ape!"
Keith Zabalaoui
In article <55bmv4$3...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, mc...@ix.netcom.com (T.
Liam McDonald) wrote:
>Martin
>
>What was the point of taking a dig at another writer in another
>magazine? What did it have to do with PC gaming? What was gained?
>Does CGW find this necessary? Do you know the parties you wrote
>about? Did you bother to contact them and ask for a quote? How
>about, "Why did you say this and didn't you think there was a conflict
>of interest?" As a journalist, wouldn't this have been the
>responsible thing to do: get the story. What you did was sloppy
>journalism. What Johnny wrote about Close Combat was incredibly
>sloppy journalism. Why is this going on?
>
>I have listened to these twerps run Bill Trotter down for about a
>year, running every writer for every magazine down along with him.
>Bill Trotter liked Ascendancy. Bill was wrong. So fucking what? Do
>you believe the teeny amount of money a writer makes from royalities
>on a strategy guide would really be enough for them to compromise
>their ethics? Why is everyone so quick to believe another person is
>an amoral slug?
>
>I've known Bill Trotter for six years. He is a respected historian
>and author. He's as ethical a guy as a know. He shouldn't have done
>that review simply because it was obvious there would appear to be a
>conflict. The comments here say clearly that whether Trotter liked
>the game or not, he would have said it was good to "feather his own
>nest," to use someone's phrase. Horse shit.
>
>By the way, Trotter did extensive consultation and writing work on
>"Across the Rhine," and he nailed the final game when it came out.
>
>It's enough. It's over. Get over it.
>
>T. Liam McDonald
>PC Gamer, GameSpot,
>Games, Boot
Yeah! What he said! <g> I, too, have worked with Bill Trotter. I called
him after purchasing, playing, and hating Ascendency. Bill honestly liked
the game. We discussed it for a long time and I know he was not falsifying
his review.
Keith
--
_ Keith Zabalaoui ____________ Atomic Games ______ http://www.atomic.com _
.__;""";, \__/ \__/ \_
\ ""--_:., "I don't know the secret of success, but the \__/ \__/
:: __;:""~ secret of failure is trying to please everyone" \__/ \_
."._:"" : \__/
_"' `---' --------- V for Victory € World at War € Close Combat ----------
TVspace
Well, this has been fun seeing all the writers scramble out from the
basboards as soon as the kitchen light is clicked off. <bfg>
It's good to see that "professional" threads get as ridiculous as any
other. Lets have a recap of what we've learned:
---Joe Grant Bell wants CGW to write more and say less (Martin C is
"bombastic" but Denny Atkin is "terse")
---Steve Bauman probably got called for a lot of "late hits" when he was
playing pee wee football.
---Martin only reads newsgroups when his name is mentioned (he hadn't seen
the Ascendency threads?!?!?)
---Joe and Steve don't see any contradiction in attacking another magazine
for attacking another magazine ad infintum
---Martin's newsreader sucks. Try aol <g>.
---Hermann Goering was Time's WWII correspondent
---Joe Klein's next project, "Primary Sprites," is an expose of Sierra
Online's Outpost 2 progamming team. It will be published in serial in PC
Gamer
---Nobody from PC Gamer reads the usenet, or else, they're simply ashamed
to show their face.
Did I miss anything?
Patrick
Joshua Io
sp...@together.net (steve b./cg strategy plus) wrote:
>In article <54v1f8$9...@uruguay.earthlink.net>, gum...@earthlink.net
>says...
>> I think it's still there. I will say that it seems to be almost
>> universal in computer gaming magazines that if someone writes in with
>> a conservative slant, every magazine will bash him/her to bits.
>> Strategy + is the worst offender here (sorry, but that's the way it
>> is...). So I don't think that Strategy + has ever been considered
>> anything close to "quiet dignity".
>
>Well, we all are part of the "liberal media elite."
>Actually, if we ever had any wacky liberals write in, we'd make even more
>fun of them. They're a pathetic bunch, trying to save the world through
>government and litigation...
And they believe in things like compassion, equality of race, gender,
economic and educational opportunity, truthfulness in political
discourse, decriminalization of victimless crimes, and so on! How
lame they must be.
Joshua Io
cgw...@aol.com (CGW Alan) wrote:
> Prior to the departure of Russell Sipe as Publisher of CGW, it was the
>magazine's policy to NEVER mention a competing magazine. And I don't
>recall, in the mag's first 11 years or so, that it ever did.
I also remember Russell mentioning once that he was very careful to
maintain a precise ad-to-article page ratio.
I'd never bash CGW, not after 10 years of reading the magazine--at
least, not if the magazine didn't deserve it. Quality of reviews may
have dropped somewhat, but there's been a lot of turnover over the
years in the people who have written for it. The changes that have
occurred under Ziff-Davis do seem to have been toward the less
strenuously-journalistic. But we've also seen the addition of Lloyd
Case's column, which has been outstanding.
And there are a lot of issues within the computer gaming industry that
need lambasting. It's a wonder to me that Martin hasn't gotten more
venomous.
It might also be that the quality of computer games--despite the bells
and whistles--has deteriorated. And the whole thing about the RID
votestuffing--that was pathetic.
It's not ten years ago. The industry has changed. As have our
methods for obtaining information. Probably anyone who might feel
moved to start a new computer game magazine merely would publish on
the web--as many people have done.
I keep hoping that someone will buy the magazine from Ziff-Davis and
return it to the eccentric little mag that we all loved and remember.
Russell probably had his reasons, though, for selling, and they may
not have had to do only with the purchase price that Z-D offered.
Though Z-D's track record seemed to be more one of buying up existing
magazines than starting their own and pressuring out the little guys.
T. Liam McDonald
tvs...@aol.com (TVspace) wrote:
>Well, this has been fun seeing all the writers scramble out from the
>basboards as soon as the kitchen light is clicked off. <bfg>
>It's good to see that "professional" threads get as ridiculous as any
>other. Lets have a recap of what we've learned:
>---Joe Grant Bell wants CGW to write more and say less (Martin C is
>"bombastic" but Denny Atkin is "terse")
>---Steve Bauman probably got called for a lot of "late hits" when he was
>playing pee wee football.
>---Martin only reads newsgroups when his name is mentioned (he hadn't seen
>the Ascendency threads?!?!?)
>---Joe and Steve don't see any contradiction in attacking another magazine
>for attacking another magazine ad infintum
>---Martin's newsreader sucks. Try aol <g>.
>---Hermann Goering was Time's WWII correspondent
>---Joe Klein's next project, "Primary Sprites," is an expose of Sierra
>Online's Outpost 2 progamming team. It will be published in serial in PC
>Gamer
>---Nobody from PC Gamer reads the usenet, or else, they're simply ashamed
>to show their face.
>Did I miss anything?
Yeah, you're an ass.
T. Liam McDonald
PC Gamer, Gamespot,
Games, Boot
Eric Lee Bailey
Afterburner
>And they believe in things like compassion, equality of race, gender,
>economic and educational opportunity, truthfulness in political
>discourse, decriminalization of victimless crimes, and so on! How
>lame they must be.
Hey! How about that? We hateful, right-wing conservatives want the
SAME THING! (Well, except for that "decriminalization of victimless
crimes" business, which I take to mean "legalize pot and other
drugs.")
We just have a different idea of how to go about achieving those ends.
Thoughtful email may be sent to abu...@erols.com.
Flames may be sent to fla...@dev.null.
Afterburner
TVspace
Yeah, I noticed he showed up soon after my little stirring of the pot
there <g>. Go get 'em, Liam!
(ever feel like a Roman at the arena?;->)
T. Liam McDonald
Martin
T. Liam McDonald
PC Gamer, GameSpot,
Games, Boot
Martin_...@mindlink.bc.ca (Martin Cirulis) wrote:
>Joe:
> Again, your desire to see everybody play nice is great but. . .don't you see
>this has nothing bloody to do with one magazine picking on another? If
>Goering wrote for the Munich TImes does that mean it would be unprofessional
>to mention that WW2 thing? This is why I went after you for not knowing what
>the original issue was about. You view it as incidental to what I wrote,
>whereas I view it as the only thing to be discussed.
Robin G. Kim
T. Liam McDonald <mc...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I have listened to these twerps run Bill Trotter down for about a
>year, running every writer for every magazine down along with him.
>Bill Trotter liked Ascendancy. Bill was wrong. So fucking what? Do
>you believe the teeny amount of money a writer makes from royalities
>on a strategy guide would really be enough for them to compromise
>their ethics? Why is everyone so quick to believe another person is
>an amoral slug?
>
>I've known Bill Trotter for six years. He is a respected historian
>and author. He's as ethical a guy as a know. He shouldn't have done
>that review simply because it was obvious there would appear to be a
>conflict.
I don't know Bill and would not presume to be certain of his intentions,
so I won't get into that at all. I would, however, like to pick a nit as
the above marked weasel word has aroused one of my pet peeves.
Many people seem to differentiate between a "potential conflict of
interest" and an "actual conflict of interest" based on the intent of
the person in question. This, IMHO, is hogwash. When it comes to
identifying a conflict of interest, intent is irrelevant! Bill Trotter
did in _fact_ have a conflict of interest when he both reviewed
Ascendency and received monetary gain by writing a strategy guide about
it. This is ethically _wrong_, IMO, no matter what his intent. If his
motives were pure, fine, he'll go to heaven when he dies, but it
doesn't change the ethical standing of his actions.
I realize I'm just arguing semantics here, but I believe the loose and variable
definitions of "conflict of interest" that have been floating through this
thread may be clouding some of the issues.
steve b./cg strategy plus
In article <55bn2n$3...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>, mc...@ix.netcom.com
says...
> tvs...@aol.com (TVspace) wrote:
>
> >---Steve Bauman probably got called for a lot of "late hits" when he was
> >playing pee wee football.
Nah. I was a baseball and basketball guy. I did get called for charges
because I was bigger than the other kids. But I have a deadly hook shot
and good range from the three-point line.
I was also a helluva pitcher. Couldn't hit my weight though (I struck out
against the Giant's Rod Beck in Little League in an all-star game - he
had that mustache at 15 - it was terrifying).
> >---Joe and Steve don't see any contradiction in attacking another magazine
> >for attacking another magazine ad infintum
Isn't it ironic, don'tcha think? A little too ironic...
Hey, they started it by printing the article. Their fair game at that
point.
Drew Fudenberg
>
> In article <MPG.cdff6d38...@news.sover.net>, sp...@together.net
> (steve b./cg strategy plus) wrote:
>
> >
> > of interest, there could be a story there. I disagree - technically,
> > there was nothing illegal there (and a contributing editor at PC Gamer I
> > spoke with about it didn't see the conflict of interest). Unethical, yes.
> > Illegal, no.
>
>
Pardon, but why do you think the question of illegal/legal is of
interest to us? The usent isn't a grand jury,
and most (if not all?) of this discussion has concerned the ethics and
propriety of reviewing a game
for which one has written the strategy guide. I think this was clearly a
serious error of judgment,
that hopefully won't be repeated, could we perhaps move on to juicier
topics,
such as what to make of the (alleged by me) fact that the pre-gold-copy,
pre-final beta preview of Moo2 on Happy Puppy is
more thoughtful and more comprehensive than many magaiznes published
-reviews.-
--
Drew Fudenberg
email: fude...@fas.harvard.edu
http://fudenberg.fas.harvard.edu
Steven Wartofsky
Liam,
Hey, you forgot one thing: a journalist in a local paper (Chicago
Tribune) recalled an old saying I had a laugh over the other day, and
which is completely apropos here: wrestling with a journalist is like
wrestling with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.... <g>
-- Steve Wartofsky, hangin' out in the corner of the hog wallow
Martin Cirulis
>---Martin only reads newsgroups when his name is mentioned (he hadn't seen
>the Ascendency threads?!?!?)
>Patrick
Actually, Pat, I was just here to see what BC3000 patches were around becuase
I have to ride point on that little bag o' fun when I finish up my review this
week. Joe was just lucky, I guess. (I have a whole theory why reviewers
should avoid newsgroups like the plague, but that's a whole different brew up:)
Ciao,
Martin E. CIrulis
Martin Cirulis
In article <tburke1-0111...@mac08.pearson.swarthmore.edu> tbu...@cc.swarthmore.edu (Timothy Burke) writes:
>From: tbu...@cc.swarthmore.edu (Timothy Burke)
>Subject: Re: CGW Arrogance, Continued
>Date: 1 Nov 1996 16:57:04 GMT
>Why is everyone so quick to believe that something was unethical here?
>Because it's an utterly natural assumption. Let's put three key things
>together:
. . . . .
>The conclusion that some kind of unethical misstep took place here, once
>these three factors are counted up, is hard to avoid. At the very least,
>someone would have to offer an equally convincing refutation in order to
>explain the confluence of these things--and T. Liam McDonald certainly
>hasn't. Instead, he's just spewed a lot of emotive outrage and assured us
>that since he knows Bill Trotter, he knows that our collective assumption
>is wrong. It would take more than someone's word of Trotter's good faith
>to explain to me why it is incorrect to assume that some kind of
>quid-pro-quo deal happened. I'd need to know why Trotter misjudged
>Ascendancy so badly, assuming he'd even acknowledge that he did so, and
>what the sequence of events was in his writing of a review and a strategy
>guide--which came first, how was he contacted for the latter, and so on.
Brilliant, Mr. Burke. Not only did you say all that needed to be said far
more calmly and at least as well as I could have but you saved L'il Liam the
agony of reading one of my long, poorly formatted replies.
I thank you, Liam thanks...the gaming world in general thanks you...Keep it up!
gratefully,
Martin E. CIrulis
steve b./cg strategy plus
In article <557u6f$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, cgw...@aol.com says...
> You and me both. I wrote an article about it that I've offered to the
> various computer gaming magazines and they wouldn't touch... If you
> want to set off a few sparks, it's up on the web at:
We said we'd print it as a letter, because as it currently stands it's
not a piece of journalism - it's a one-sided diatribe. An incredibly
important side of the story is missing: Prima's.
Get Prima's side, interview other writers, don't make statements about
other publishers "maybe" acting the same way (either prove it or leave it
out), and then we'll talk.
T. Liam McDonald
S_War...@msn.com (Steven Wartofsky) wrote:
>Liam,
The pig only likes it if there's free booze involved.