Whats wrong with Computer Gaming World!!??
fcage
Has anyone noticed how small the Nov. and Dec. issues are this year. I
received my DEC. issue yesterday and was shocked at how small it was. I
dug out my Dec 98 issue and its almost half the size and its as small as
June 98's issue. The worst time for gaming news. Spring/Summer is when I
expect skinny magazines not NOV. and DEC. I don't know about anyone else
but I really enjoy cracking open the huge issues building up to
Christmas and reading and rereading about all the excellent games and
hardware I want. I even enjoy looking at the advertisements. They
sometimes let you know what's coming out within a year or sometimes 2 or
3 :-).
Oh well, at least my Nov. PC gamer issue isn't on a diet and hopefully
the December issue will have finished Thanksgiving dinner by the time I
receive it :-).
idleeric
fcage wrote in message <3821AC35...@us.hsanet.net>...
>For those who don't know its a magazine.
>
>Has anyone noticed how small the Nov. and Dec. issues are this year. I
>received my DEC. issue yesterday and was shocked at how small it was. I
>dug out my Dec 98 issue and its almost half the size and its as small as
>June 98's issue. The worst time for gaming news. Spring/Summer is when I
>expect skinny magazines not NOV. and DEC. I don't know about anyone else
>but I really enjoy cracking open the huge issues building up to
>Christmas and reading and rereading about all the excellent games and
>hardware I want. I even enjoy looking at the advertisements. They
>sometimes let you know what's coming out within a year or sometimes 2 or
>3 :-).
rats leaving a sinking ship .... ZD stockholders (or their parent Jap Co., i
should say) Take Note .....
Jim Engle
issue is the real "Holiday" issue this year?
fcage <fc...@us.hsanet.net> wrote in message
news:3821AC35...@us.hsanet.net...
> For those who don't know its a magazine.
>
> Has anyone noticed how small the Nov. and Dec. issues are this year. I
> received my DEC. issue yesterday and was shocked at how small it was. I
> dug out my Dec 98 issue and its almost half the size and its as small as
> June 98's issue. The worst time for gaming news. Spring/Summer is when I
> expect skinny magazines not NOV. and DEC. I don't know about anyone else
> but I really enjoy cracking open the huge issues building up to
> Christmas and reading and rereading about all the excellent games and
> hardware I want. I even enjoy looking at the advertisements. They
> sometimes let you know what's coming out within a year or sometimes 2 or
> 3 :-).
>
okbl...@my-deja.com
"Jim Engle" <jen...@removethis.nescoweb.com> wrote:
> The December Issue was out the First of November.. Maybe the January
2000
> issue is the real "Holiday" issue this year?
As I understand it, the date on the cover of a magazine tells the
retailer when to remove it so, yeah, the issue meant to be sold in
December will actually be out in December (with a January date on the
cover).
--
[ok]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mad Aardvark of Doom
<BillS...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>It is probably in its death throes.
>
>Take a look at Computer Shopper sometime to see another "magazine" on
>its way out. Two years ago you practically needed a forklift to move an
>issue while the latest ones are maybe 1/3 the size.
Tech column aside, is it just me, or has PC Gamer gotten better as CGW
has gotten worse? It's like, Lloyd Case does the best hardware section
in a gaming mag, but the PC Gamer is a better magazine overall(except
for the console bashing.)
--
Mad Aardvark of Doom(Formerly Poster Formerly Known as Guyver3)
Nifty new name. Same old spam-trap Netaddress account.
Bill Harris
issue? The issue is fully 65% ad pages (I counted). Unbelievable. I sent an
e-mail to their staff and to their credit, they replied, but they said that
is the normal ratio. Are you kidding me? They have hardly any content in the
damn magazine any more at all.
b
idleeric <std...@mich.com> wrote in message
news:s23gl5...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
>
> fcage wrote in message <3821AC35...@us.hsanet.net>...
RLJSlick
Baron Calamity <rob...@bcpl.net> wrote in message
news:38221c96...@news.abs.net...
> On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 10:54:29 -0500, fcage <fc...@us.hsanet.net> wrote:
>
> >For those who don't know its a magazine.
> >
> >Has anyone noticed how small the Nov. and Dec. issues are this year. I
> >received my DEC. issue yesterday and was shocked at how small it was.
>
>
> I noticed that too. Computer Gaming (use to include Strategy Plus) is
> getting really small as well. I wouldn't be surprised if online web
> sites are starting to kill magazing circulation.
> --
> Baron Calamity
> Pushing Daisies, another damn web comic:
> http://www.bcpl.net/~robertm/robscomics
Stan Trevena
most would not give PC Gamer the time of day. Now their reviews are more on
the mark, the magazine seems more solid and polished than CGW. PC Gamer
maintains it's heft, while CGW shrinks and shrinks. It's not going to be
long before they are back to late 70's page counts (anyone who's been around
any length of time remembers how thin CGW was way back then). Add to this
the stupid moves by their marketing dept. of late and you have a disaster in
progress. Jump JUMP! Quick, get out of the blast radius.
- Stan Trevena
Bill Seurer <BillS...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:3821C766...@vnet.ibm.com...
> X-no-archive: yes
>
> fcage wrote:
> > Has anyone noticed how small the Nov. and Dec. issues are this year. I
> > received my DEC. issue yesterday and was shocked at how small it was. I
> > dug out my Dec 98 issue and its almost half the size and its as small as
> > June 98's issue. ...
>
> It is probably in its death throes.
>
> Take a look at Computer Shopper sometime to see another "magazine" on
> its way out. Two years ago you practically needed a forklift to move an
> issue while the latest ones are maybe 1/3 the size.
> --
>
> Bill Seurer Compiler Development IBM Rochester, MN
> Bill_Seurer AT us.ibm.com Bill AT seurer.net
> http://www.seurer.net/ (replace " AT " with "@" to email me)
Sean Tudor
>For those who don't know its a magazine.
>Has anyone noticed how small the Nov. and Dec. issues are this year. I
>received my DEC. issue yesterday and was shocked at how small it was. I
>dug out my Dec 98 issue and its almost half the size and its as small as
>June 98's issue. The worst time for gaming news. Spring/Summer is when I
>expect skinny magazines not NOV. and DEC. I don't know about anyone else
>but I really enjoy cracking open the huge issues building up to
>Christmas and reading and rereading about all the excellent games and
>hardware I want. I even enjoy looking at the advertisements. They
>sometimes let you know what's coming out within a year or sometimes 2 or
>3 :-).
I believe there are now two versions of CGW. If you pay extra money
you get the full magazine with all the articles. Otherwise you just
get the standard cut-down edition.
------------------------
Sean Tudor
Sydney, Australia
------------------------
This is my cannon, this is my gun
One is for bandits, and one is for fun
------------------------
studor at ozemail dot com dot au
Baron Calamity
>For those who don't know its a magazine.
>
>Has anyone noticed how small the Nov. and Dec. issues are this year. I
>received my DEC. issue yesterday and was shocked at how small it was.
The T stands for Smooth
issues are primarily ads. No lie - I used to rip out all the ads to see
just how much content there actually was... in the case of November/December
issues, I removed over HALF the pages, and that's not counting the single
page ads with actual articles and reviews.
--
Smooth T's badder than the wicked witch
Got more rhymes than you can beat with a switch.
Geek (n): Someone who puts C++ code in their .sigs :)
fcage <fc...@us.hsanet.net> wrote in message
news:3821AC35...@us.hsanet.net...
> For those who don't know its a magazine.
>
> Has anyone noticed how small the Nov. and Dec. issues are this year. I
> received my DEC. issue yesterday and was shocked at how small it was. I
> dug out my Dec 98 issue and its almost half the size and its as small as
> June 98's issue. The worst time for gaming news. Spring/Summer is when I
> expect skinny magazines not NOV. and DEC. I don't know about anyone else
> but I really enjoy cracking open the huge issues building up to
> Christmas and reading and rereading about all the excellent games and
> hardware I want. I even enjoy looking at the advertisements. They
> sometimes let you know what's coming out within a year or sometimes 2 or
> 3 :-).
>
fcage
the reviews are still reliable, to me anyway.
Bill Seurer wrote:
> X-no-archive: yes
>
> fcage wrote:
> > Has anyone noticed how small the Nov. and Dec. issues are this year. I
> > received my DEC. issue yesterday and was shocked at how small it was. I
> > dug out my Dec 98 issue and its almost half the size and its as small as
Mark Eubank
fcage wrote:
> I hope its not in its death throes. Its still has the best tech section and
> the reviews are still reliable, to me anyway.
>
> Bill Seurer wrote:
>
> > X-no-archive: yes
> >
Well,concidering the wealth of misinformation the mag has put out lately plus
some off the wall reviews (read thier horrible review of disciples for instance.
I'm convinced the reviewer never played a single senerio and went on to trash
it, yet i find the game much more solid than warlords with stronger A.I. that
Heroes II or Three, in esence a very strong title, especially for a first try)
and you can see why so many gamers no longer turn to that mag for reviews. The
mag has suffered ever since ZDnet took over.Mark
pym...@my-deja.com
fcage <fc...@us.hsanet.net> wrote:
> I hope its not in its death throes. Its still has the best tech
section and
> the reviews are still reliable, to me anyway.
I don't think I trust the tech section anymore, either. On Gamespot
Lloyd Case still claims that he can't find a stable Athlon
motherboard. I refuse to believe that the high and mighty Mr. Case
can't find one when I've had mine for six weeks. Look at any reliable
hardware site on the net, and you'll discover that no one else is
having any trouble finding one, either.
Pymont
Sawyer
displaying some serious wishful thinking.
1. Jeff Green is the best gaming editorial writer. Period.
2. Lloyd Case tells it like it is and has so for years. I'm not about
to give up YEARS worth of reliable hardware reviews and opinions
because a couple of wankers on the Athlon bandwagon say "Hey, I've got
a reliable motherboard".
3. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about CGW knows that they do not review a
game without playing it all the way through(as one fellow in this
thread suggested). Again, they have given us YEARS worth of the best
reviews in the business. We should invalidate that because one or two
reviews do not exactly jive with popular opinion? If you can find a
gaming mag whose opinions match yours 100% then let me let you in on a
secret: You are a sheep who cannot form your own opinions.
4. The fact of the matter is that CGW has the muscle to tell it like it
is without fallout from the gaming company. No gaming company in their
right mind would keep CGW out of the loop because of a past review.
The same cannot be said for most other mags and (especially) web sites.
5. Many people will hate a mag just because it is part of the Ziff-
Davis family. Please.
Finally, I've noticed than MANY of the detractors are fans of PCGamer.
That alone should tell you that their opinions(while maybe valid to
them and their crowd) are nowhere near your taste or expectations.
Roderick Pommier
plus
> some off the wall reviews (read thier horrible review of disciples for
instance.
> I'm convinced the reviewer never played a single senerio and went on to
trash
> it, yet i find the game much more solid than warlords with stronger A.I.
that
> Heroes II or Three, in esence a very strong title, especially for a first
try)
> and you can see why so many gamers no longer turn to that mag for reviews.
The
> mag has suffered ever since ZDnet took over.Mark
don't forget that aweful website... why do they even maintain one?
rod...
Shane
>>
>>received my DEC. issue yesterday and was shocked at how small it was.
>
>getting really small as well. I wouldn't be surprised if online web
>sites are starting to kill magazing circulation.
>--
joining the Internet. Only reason I can think of these days to buy a
magazine is to get the Cover CD. Might have some usefull utilities, or
large demos difficult to download. (eg Ultima 9)
If I'm thinking of buying a game, Ill just hit most of the major Gaming news
sites and read their reviews. After you read about 5 or 6 reviews you
usually get an accurate idea on a game. Check out a site like Desslock's,
they report reviews on RPG's that have come in. Generally all the reviews
of a specific game fall into about the same take/impression but you always
get some reviews way out of whack. Read 5 or 6 and you avoid buying a crap
game on the strength of one bad review.
Shane
Gern Blensten
> displaying some serious wishful thinking.
<snip>
> 4. The fact of the matter is that CGW has the muscle to tell it like it
> is without fallout from the gaming company. No gaming company in their
> right mind would keep CGW out of the loop because of a past review.
> The same cannot be said for most other mags and (especially) web sites.
> 5. Many people will hate a mag just because it is part of the Ziff-
> Davis family. Please.
-----------------
Worker Working
>
>
> > 5. Many people will hate a mag just because it is part of the Ziff-
> > Davis family. Please.
>
> Agreed. Ziff-Davis is the "Microsoft" of the publishing world. Some
> people just have a real problem with other's successes. If you want
> to see a real band of "malcontents", check out some of the message
> boards on ZDNet.com... those folks are HARSH!
>
Any concerns I have about Ziff-Davis have nothing to do with jealousy or
being a malcontent.
Ziff-Davis has published enough non-sensical reviews to make me NEVER
believe anything they say.
As one example, they reported that an i740 was TWICE as fast in 3D as a
Voodoo2 card (see their Monster3D II review at PCComputing, if it's
still in their archives) and when rebuttals were sent, they picked the
most boneheaded of letters to print and then blasted the reader for not
knowing what he was talking about.
The article ended with "there are other 3D add-on boards that are much
faster" which TODAY is still not true. And this was published over a
year ago.
By the way, the i740 is made by Intel and Intel is part owner of
Ziff-Davis.
idleeric
Worker Working wrote in message <382305A6...@work.com>...
you'll always get moron True Believers who will salute any flag or thump any
bible out there ... i.e. The Gospel According to Bill Gates ...
you slap them on the side of the head w/ cold facts & hard logic ....
they disappear ....
out come 100 *new* trolls parrotting the same Party Line .....
--
* * * * * * * *
Evil is even, truth is an odd number, and death is a full stop
- Flann O'Brien, At Swim-Two-Birds
Loyd Case
--
Best Regards,
Loyd Case
Contributing Editor, Technology
Computer Gaming World & Gamespot
Sean Tudor <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:NPghOGbHEptOm2...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 10:54:29 -0500, fcage <fc...@us.hsanet.net> wrote:
>
> >For those who don't know its a magazine.
> >Has anyone noticed how small the Nov. and Dec. issues are this year. I
> >received my DEC. issue yesterday and was shocked at how small it was. I
> >dug out my Dec 98 issue and its almost half the size and its as small as
> >June 98's issue. The worst time for gaming news. Spring/Summer is when I
> >expect skinny magazines not NOV. and DEC. I don't know about anyone else
> >but I really enjoy cracking open the huge issues building up to
> >Christmas and reading and rereading about all the excellent games and
> >hardware I want. I even enjoy looking at the advertisements. They
> >sometimes let you know what's coming out within a year or sometimes 2 or
> >3 :-).
>
Robert L. Mullen
wrote:
>On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 10:54:29 -0500, fcage <fc...@us.hsanet.net> wrote:
>
>>For those who don't know its a magazine.
>>
>>Has anyone noticed how small the Nov. and Dec. issues are this year. I
>>received my DEC. issue yesterday and was shocked at how small it was.
>
>
>I noticed that too. Computer Gaming (use to include Strategy Plus) is
>getting really small as well. I wouldn't be surprised if online web
>sites are starting to kill magazing circulation.
>--
Here is something interesting: I have two subscriptions to Computer
Gaming (strat +). Actually one subscription belongs to my
girlfriend... I think I actually sent the registration card for a game
I bought her last year. Last month I got my normal two issues, but
one is twice the size of the other. The larger issue had three
"bonus" sections that were not included in the smaller issue... these
bonus sections comprised approximately 20 to 30 pages. The bonus
sections were mainly reviews!!!
What's up with this!!
Later,
Rob
Joe Johnson
Robert L. Mullen <rlmu...@SENDNOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message > Here
is something interesting: I have two subscriptions to Computer
> Gaming (strat +). Actually one subscription belongs to my
> girlfriend... I think I actually sent the registration card for a game
> I bought her last year. Last month I got my normal two issues, but
> one is twice the size of the other. The larger issue had three
> "bonus" sections that were not included in the smaller issue... these
> bonus sections comprised approximately 20 to 30 pages. The bonus
> sections were mainly reviews!!!
>
> What's up with this!!
>
CD subscribers also get bonus articles in the magazine. The cheaper version
without the CD excludes these (but does list the articles in the Contents
Section so you know what it is you're missing).
Michael Zier
power, they went downhilll. End of story.
Anyways, who the hell crossposted this argument into so many boards?
It doesn't belong in the Adventure Game newsgroup, for example,
because CGW wouldn't know a good game if it got up and bit them in the
ass.
Michael
On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 14:41:21 GMT, Sawyer <saw...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I wouldn't worry about CGW if I were you. The detractors are
>displaying some serious wishful thinking.
>
>1. Jeff Green is the best gaming editorial writer. Period.
>2. Lloyd Case tells it like it is and has so for years. I'm not about
>to give up YEARS worth of reliable hardware reviews and opinions
>because a couple of wankers on the Athlon bandwagon say "Hey, I've got
>a reliable motherboard".
>3. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about CGW knows that they do not review a
>game without playing it all the way through(as one fellow in this
>thread suggested). Again, they have given us YEARS worth of the best
---
Michael Zier <mic...@gt-adventure.com> http://www.gt-adventure.com
Editor, Adventure Central -- it's where you go for adventure game stuff.
413.383.6200
914.206.3572 fax
MdmeDis
says...
> I hope its not in its death throes. Its still has the best tech section and
> the reviews are still reliable, to me anyway.
I agree - it hasn't yet sold its soul to the advertisers - although
Wilson's departure has some really interesting connections to Origin's
ad-pulling and re-instatement.
PC gamer is not a bad mag for the short attention span bunch, but its
reviews are pretty lightweight and certainly designed not to offend any
serious advertisers.
--
Disoriented Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
Having finally opted for it being the rest of the
world that's screwed, after all.
Kay-Yut Chen - remove ABC in email to reply
>>
>>Take a look at Computer Shopper sometime to see another "magazine" on
>>its way out. Two years ago you practically needed a forklift to move an
>>issue while the latest ones are maybe 1/3 the size.
>
>has gotten worse? It's like, Lloyd Case does the best hardware section
>in a gaming mag, but the PC Gamer is a better magazine overall(except
>for the console bashing.)
Yeah I agreed.
I subscribe to 2 gaming magazines, CGW and PC Gamer.
Over the years,, PC Gamer has been getting a lot better and now it is
the top dog.
Kay-Yut
Spam Filter
> >Tech column aside, is it just me, or has PC Gamer gotten better as CGW
> >has gotten worse? It's like, Lloyd Case does the best hardware section
> >in a gaming mag, but the PC Gamer is a better magazine overall(except
> >for the console bashing.)
>
> Yeah I agreed.
>
> I subscribe to 2 gaming magazines, CGW and PC Gamer.
>
> Over the years,, PC Gamer has been getting a lot better and now it is
> the top dog.
>
> Kay-Yut
I don't think PC Gamer has improved all that much. We've just been
conditioned into expecting less by the demise of CGW and the CD
shenanigans at CGS+.
Maybe I'm vanishing into nostalgia though. Or my expectations for a
good computer magazine are unrealistic.
-d
--
perl -e 'print pack"C*","100112064113110105046099111109010"=~/\d{3}/g'
"Grammar, which controls even kings ..." --Moliere
hkc...@hkchan.pc.my
>>
>>Has anyone noticed how small the Nov. and Dec. issues are this year. I
>>received my DEC. issue yesterday and was shocked at how small it was. I
>>June 98's issue. The worst time for gaming news. Spring/Summer is when I
>>expect skinny magazines not NOV. and DEC. I don't know about anyone else
>>but I really enjoy cracking open the huge issues building up to
>>Christmas and reading and rereading about all the excellent games and
>>hardware I want. I even enjoy looking at the advertisements. They
>>sometimes let you know what's coming out within a year or sometimes 2 or
>>3 :-).
It is not surprising to me. I feel this year has been a very bad year
for gaming. Last year we have several highly anticipated titles being
released at year end: Falcon 4.0, Half Life, Baldur Gate, Age of
Empire add-on, Fallout 2, Return To Krondor, European Air War, NFS3,
Shogo, Heretic 2, QfG5 etc. Even Alpha Centauri and Civ:Call To Power
were expected last year end.
This year? nothing.
Douglas S. Hillman
Stan Trevena <stre...@lodinet.com> wrote in message
news:s24o99...@corp.supernews.com...
> PC Gamer really pulled out ahead of CGW a year or so ago. I remember when
> most would not give PC Gamer the time of day. Now their reviews are more
on
> the mark, the magazine seems more solid and polished than CGW. PC Gamer
> maintains it's heft, while CGW shrinks and shrinks. It's not going to be
> long before they are back to late 70's page counts (anyone who's been
around
> any length of time remembers how thin CGW was way back then). Add to this
> the stupid moves by their marketing dept. of late and you have a disaster
in
> progress. Jump JUMP! Quick, get out of the blast radius.
>
I'd give ANYTHING to have CGW back to being the mag it was
for about the first decade of it's existence. The page counts
may have been lower, but by and golly those pages were FILLED
with actual WORDS!
I can somewhat deal with the console mags being all terribly
layed out pictures, as they're supposedly aimed at the barely
literate adolescent crowd. I find it very unfortunate though, that
even CGW has descended into the depths of "cutting edge,
in-your-face" layouts filled with unreadable fonts, a layout that
makes it difficult to find the hard info on the game, and more
pictures than ya know what to do with.
I remember the days that almost every review in CGW was
at least two text filled pages in length and contained in-depth
information and real commentary. Now all we get are alot of
screen shots, with a rehashed press release from the game
designer. (This is somewhat of an exaggeration, but the
reviews definitely ain't what they used to be.)
-dobe-
Trent
> It is not surprising to me. I feel this year has been a very bad year
> for gaming. Last year we have several highly anticipated titles being
> released at year end: Falcon 4.0, Half Life, Baldur Gate, Age of
> Empire add-on, Fallout 2, Return To Krondor, European Air War, NFS3,
> Shogo, Heretic 2, QfG5 etc. Even Alpha Centauri and Civ:Call To Power
> were expected last year end.
>
> This year? nothing.
Well, I wouldn't say "nothing." We got: Rollercoaster Tycoon,
Worms:Armageddon, HOMM3, Age of Empires 2, and Jagged Alliance 2. We
also got some interesting near misses like "Hidden and Dangerous" and
"Mob Rule". And there are still about 1/2 a dozen 1999 games that I
haven't gotten around to buying yet, like System Shock 2, Revenant,
Thief Gold, the list goes on. It's not a bad year if I always have
something I want to buy.
----> Trent
Stan Trevena
their printed mag, and with their on-line mags. Alan Emerich was the person
who recruited me, and after his departure Allen G. was my editor. That
should give my comments some credibility since I've been on the inside.
> 2. Lloyd Case tells it like it is and has so for years.
Lloyd Case's articles are very good, but he has had mistakes over the years
(nothing to slay him over). I emailed him when he did the article on TCP/IP
last year. In his example he used an invalid (as in not possible) example
of an IP address. He said I was the first to tell him about the mistake.
This is one of the reasons I still bother even picking up CGW.
> 3. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about CGW knows that they do not review a
> game without playing it all the way through(as one fellow in this
> thread suggested).
Give me a break!!! You obviously have never done reviews. I wrote for
CGW/Ziff for quite a spell (stopped in '95). They pay (or at least used to)
by the word. If memory serves, it was around $.065/word back then. Let's
give some inflation and make it $.10/word for this example. For the
Disciples (112 words) Quick Take review you would pull down a piddly $11.
I'm sure that Jeff just sat there and played out every quest and saga for
that check. Actually, the writer's guidelines state that with strategy
titles you need to spend enough time to get a good feel for the overall
game. If he spent an hour with the game I would be shocked. I think that
these "Quick Takes" should be renamed "MisTakes". I love Jeff's back column
article (it's actually the first thing I read when I get a new issue). His
humor is great and I always get a laugh. So don't get me wrong, I'm not
trashing his writing, maybe he (or better yet CGW) should just stay out of
the Quick Take business. I don't care that he's "on staff" (ie: not a
freelancer), there's no way that he gave Disciples the time "required" (as
you point out) by CGW reviewers. A quick read around this group will tell
you that much. (and Skydive's Quick Take pulled down 2 stars??? Higher than
Disciples? yeah right).
> Again, they have given us YEARS worth of the best
> reviews in the business. We should invalidate that because one or two
> reviews do not exactly jive with popular opinion? If you can find a
> gaming mag whose opinions match yours 100% then let me let you in on a
> secret: You are a sheep who cannot form your own opinions.
I think there have been more than a few incidents over the past year
(reviews and marketing snafus) that have left a bad feeling with many people
who subscribe, or loyally purchase the mag at the newstand. Following a
lemming off the cliff, or a ship to the bottom of the ocean when it's going
down would be an example of "sheep". Past performance is not a motivator
for future loyalty. If you used that rule of thumb for buying stocks you
would lose your shirt. Current performance is much higher on the list for
evaluation than past performance.
> 4. The fact of the matter is that CGW has the muscle to tell it like it
> is without fallout from the gaming company. No gaming company in their
> right mind would keep CGW out of the loop because of a past review.
> The same cannot be said for most other mags and (especially) web sites.
I trust some of the websites infinitely more than the rags (and CGW is
sinking into the literal definition of a rag, not there yet though). I look
to GoneGold for all my release info and upcoming game info. Gamespot is
another great source for info (yes, a Ziff company). These are the two
sites I visit daily. In my years of reviewing I had several reviews
softened up because they (CGW) did not want to alienate the company
(Microprose comes to mind off the top) due to a harsh review. So you can
drop the mantra of "telling it like it is". Advertisers pay the bills, and
you don't crucify your big ticket companies. There's always a way to reword
something so it can be interpreted differently. I think that it is exactly
your attitude of "CGW has the muscle" that has gotten them in trouble
recently. Over the years CGW got too comfortable being the leader in the
industry and they let their guard down. Now they keep trying to change the
magazine to fit an undefined audience (which I truly think they've lost
sight of, as is evidenced by all their marketing manuevers and redesigns
over the past year). If CGW and PC Gamer both come on the same day, I will
read through my PC Gamer before I break the seal on CGW.
> 5. Many people will hate a mag just because it is part of the Ziff-
> Davis family. Please.
>
Is this a vast right wing conspiracy? I've yet to run into any Ziff haters.
Give me a break. This is the defense that weak people use to defend
themselves. You cast yourself as a victim and think people will feel sorry
for you and come over and support you out of pity. It seems to have worked
for Bill and Hillary, but I doubt it will work here.
> Finally, I've noticed than MANY of the detractors are fans of PCGamer.
> That alone should tell you that their opinions(while maybe valid to
> them and their crowd) are nowhere near your taste or expectations.
>
"Them and their crowd"??? This statement is pure crap. CGW has always
prided themselves on their use of the english language and their literary
style. I swear it must be a requirement to run your review through an
Oxford Thesaurus before publishing in the magazine. I think this was a
trend that Johnny set way back when he was trying to bring some legitamacy
to the whole game reviewing business. It's yet another sign of their
current confusion over who their audience is. Are they targeting kids or
adults? If they are trying to appeal to kids, then drop the highfalutin
language (this is a games magazine, not Architectural Digest).
If you want my opinion (you probably don't at this point), I think CGW
started it's decline when they broke from their niche as the best source of
information on games in the industry to the "we want a bigger demographic so
let's dumb down the magazine" phase. Remember when they took a stab at
including and reviewing console games? That was when this period started.
How many statistical tables do you see these days? Those pretty much went
out the window with Alan Emerich and his departure from the magazine.
There's not much in the magazine now that could not be had on-line quicker
and cheaper. There may be 100's of garbage gaming sites run by rookies, but
all you need are a few to eliminate your need for an outdated print
magazine. So hold those issues of CGW to your chest and hold on tight. I
think there are many more bumps in the road ahead for CGW.
Another great source for computer related info is AnchorDesk (yet another
excellent Ziff endeavor). I read that site daily as well. Is it any wonder
that I have let all my subscriptions to InfoWorld, PCWeek, ComputerWorld and
such lapse with all the great info on-line? My day job is as Director of
Technology, and I am 36 years old (right in the demographic that CGW has
published as their readership over the past few years).
- Stan Trevena (not a Ziff Davis hater)
Gamer Man
do something terrible and folks will be saying how much better CGW is
than PC Gamer. Then it'll be Computer Games' turn...
Gamer Man
Roderick Pommier
news:n7cjOMG4QXamDI...@4ax.com...
no, pc lamer always sucks...
rod...
Roderick Pommier
> for about the first decade of it's existence. The page counts
> may have been lower, but by and golly those pages were FILLED
> with actual WORDS!
i sure remember those days... i remember the Mechwarrior II review they
did, that was one of the best game reviews i ever read...
rod...
Stan Trevena
CGW issues up there from the 80's and early 90's (my reviews were from
'90-'95). I'll take a peek at the ratio of ads to reviews, and the amount of
"meat" in those reviews. I've done my share of tables and I know that many
pages were filled with tables and stats back then. Pick up any book from
Alan Emerich
or Johnny Wilson (still have a signed copy of their first CIV book "Rome on
640K. . .", the title dates the book) and you will see what I mean about
"meat". Back then you got cold hard facts about the games that were
reviewed and featured. The reviews were not available on, or before, the
release of the game either. It actually took time to get all that data
together through actual play. Today you don't even get that kind of content
in most strategy guides. Many of the "strategy" guides are nothing more
than a collection of mission walkthroughs. Gone is the core info that
hardcore gamers always demanded back then. PC Gamer appears to have picked
up on this and are starting to publish this type of data on some of the
games in their Strategy pieces (look at the Total Annihilation Kingdoms
piece in the November issue). I remember when CGW was pushing it if there
was a single black and white graphic in a two page review. Now you get 50%
coverage of the review pages with graphics.
Take the November issue of the CGW (please<g>). The magazine is 70%
advertisements, and only 30% content (and that's counting the table of
contents, editorial credits and index as content). If you visually look at
the pages you will find that an average of 50% of the page is covered in
screenshots and other graphics. Calculate that and you will find that
roughly 15% of the magazine is actual "meat" or content. With the November
issue that translates to a whopping 36 pages of text!!! You do the math.
Add to this that the reviews are looking more and more like advertisements
and you don't have a whole lot to stand by. Compare the "Advertisement
Reviews" like those found on pages 167-174 of the November issue with ANY
other review in the magazine. See the difference? Right, now you're
getting my point.
I think the only thing still keeping people buying the magazine is the CD. I
buy the solo issue of CGW because I have T1 access to the Internet and have
no problem downloading large demos (if I want them). Take the CD away and
you would lose a bunch of subscribers who are simply taking the easy way out
to get the demos. Make whatever excuses you want about CGW, but I think
that they have taken a huge hit in quality and content over the past few
years as they scramble to try and a.) increase their demographic (and
abandon their original audience) and b.) dumb down the magazine, ditching
the very features that used to make them "The King" of game reviewing
market. They are now just another "eye candy" video games magazine packed
with a bunch of glossy pictures and a wad of demo's on a companion CD.
It's not just computer game magazines that are getting hit with drops in
subscriptions. I recently saw an article in a financial publication on an
IPO (Initial Public Offering of stock) that Playboy was/is going to issue.
The historical circulation numbers for the magazine were given and they've
taken a huge decrease in their numbers over the past 10 years. Thus the
shift to the Internet (the source of the IPO), and an online presence with
their CyberClub. What do you think has contributed to the decline in their
circulation? If you guessed the Internet you get bonus points. If you're
in the market for nude pictures, you can get a whole lot of pictures in a
short amount of time for free on the Internet. Buy the magazine and you are
limited to a handful of well done tasteful and professional shots. Counter
to popular belief, most men do not buy the magazine for the articles<g>.
See the parallel to gaming mags? Lots of crap on the Internet when it comes
to gaming sites (and adult content), but there are a handful of really good
ones that more than fill the need for most gamers/viewers (or is that
voyeur?). Don't think that Ziff Davis won't cut their losses if circulation
of CGW drops off the map. Johnny Wilson's no dummy. Where did he jump? He
went to Wizards of the Coast. Putting their huge success with Magic: The
Gathering aside, Pokemon is jumping them off the scale of recorded success.
He took on how many magazines (I think it was 6)? All you have to do is
read the writing on the wall (and the Internet) and you can see where things
are going.
Next Christmas we will have to have a repost of this subject with a "state
of the industry" summary to see where it has all gone. I predict by then
that we will have seen some major changes in this segment of publishing
(computer game reviewing), and possibly some absentees from the scene. Time
will tell. Right now we can only speculate. You now know where I see it
going.
- Stan Trevena
Douglas S. Hillman <d...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:s26ull...@corp.supernews.com...
pym...@my-deja.com
"Gern Blensten" <evil...@antisocial.com> wrote:
> > 5. Many people will hate a mag just because it is part of the Ziff-
> > Davis family. Please.
>
> people just have a real problem with other's successes.
I don't give a damn who owns the magazine. When I first subscribed,
they had six page reviews. Now, they have six reviews on a page. Your
argument is childish. It has no relation to reality whatsoever. Save
your theories about a grand conspiracy against Ziff-Davis for the Art
Bell forum.
Pymont
pym...@my-deja.com
"Stan Trevena" <stre...@lodinet.com> wrote:
> Let me start by saying that I reviewed for CGW for close to five
years in
> their printed mag, and with their on-line mags.
(And so forth.)
Uh oh, Stan, what you wrote made perfect sense. Prepare to be either
ignored or flamed.
Gern Blensten
I wish my argument WAS childish, but it's not. Also, I wasn't specifically
referring to YOU in my argument, it was just a generalization - one that I
happen to think is true... Sometimes it seems that certain folks can't get
past the company that MAKES a product in order to actually form a decent
opinion ABOUT the product itself.
I know its fun to "bash" people across an anonymous forum, but your "Art
Bell" and your "no relation in reality" comments were really uncalled for.
I was just stating an opinion.
-----------------------
Visit The Gamer's Perspective at http://www.erols.com/otteaux
John DiFool
Stan Trevena wrote:
> Next Christmas we will have to have a repost of this subject with a "state
> of the industry" summary to see where it has all gone. I predict by then
> that we will have seen some major changes in this segment of publishing
> (computer game reviewing), and possibly some absentees from the scene. Time
> will tell. Right now we can only speculate. You now know where I see it
> going.
>
> - Stan Trevena
Excellent posts Stan-really appreciate an insider "telling it like it is."
I was
particularly amazed that you were coerced into softening reviews-I had always
assumed that CGW was above that kind of thing. :-p
In any event we have been here before-remember the Atari glut in the early
80's, immediately followed by the crash of the old cartridge market? (this was
before the genre was ressurected by Nintendo c. 3 years later) In fact CGW
was the ONLY video game magazine to have survived that cataclysm (tho
the factors behind that collapse are radically different than now), and they did
so precisely because they didn't aim for the lowest common denominator.
Somehow I doubt that the current management will remember the lesson their
predecessors learned the hard way-those who fail to remember their history
are condemned to repeat it...
John DiFool
Mark Asher
<stre...@lodinet.com> wrote:
>Give me a break!!! You obviously have never done reviews. I wrote for
>CGW/Ziff for quite a spell (stopped in '95). They pay (or at least used to)
>by the word. If memory serves, it was around $.065/word back then. Let's
>give some inflation and make it $.10/word for this example. For the
>Disciples (112 words) Quick Take review you would pull down a piddly $11.
>I'm sure that Jeff just sat there and played out every quest and saga for
>that check. Actually, the writer's guidelines state that with strategy
>titles you need to spend enough time to get a good feel for the overall
>game. If he spent an hour with the game I would be shocked. I think that
>these "Quick Takes" should be renamed "MisTakes". I love Jeff's back column
>article (it's actually the first thing I read when I get a new issue). His
>humor is great and I always get a laugh. So don't get me wrong, I'm not
>trashing his writing, maybe he (or better yet CGW) should just stay out of
>the Quick Take business. I don't care that he's "on staff" (ie: not a
>freelancer), there's no way that he gave Disciples the time "required" (as
>you point out) by CGW reviewers. A quick read around this group will tell
>you that much. (and Skydive's Quick Take pulled down 2 stars??? Higher than
>Disciples? yeah right).
Yeah, I think the quick takes probably shouldn't have ratings. Let the
text convey the reviewer's thoughts. If Jeff didn't like Disciples
because he felt it was a HOMM knockoff, that's a valid opinion. Like
you, though, I think it warrants a higher rating.
For the quick takes, they'd probably be better off not calling them
reviews and dropping the ratings. They could go with something called,
"What Gamers are Saying" and just scan Usenet and some message boards
for reactions to new releases. They could paraphrase or even quote
directly. (I think comments posted to public boards, etc., are in the
public domain.)
There, that's part of my "If I ruled the world" manifesto. <g>
Oh yeah, Skydive is absymal. I actually reviewed that game for another
site. I gave it 1 star, but I probably overrated it.
Mark Asher
Ken Beard
was worth it's weight in gold in the pre-online days, as it's reviews saved
me TONS of money on crappy games. The other thing is it turned me on to a
number of games that I wouldn't have played.
For example, I was pretty much a diehard flight simmer and wargamer back
when X-Com came out, and wouldn't have paid much attention to it. Reading
the in-depth review in CGW, though, and I saw this was a game I had to
play - and had a lot of fun with it. Several other times before and since I
got great games that weren't really in my core genres and had a blast with
'em, due to the detailed, lengthy reviews in CGW. Back then, you'd get 2 or
more pages that went into lots of specifics - and for the WHOLE game, as the
policy back then was that the reviewers had to complete the game before a
review.
A few years back, you could see that Ziff-Davis was slowly eroding this
great mag, and I stopped my subscription. Now, I don't bother with any of
the mags, unless there is some 250 MB demo on the CD that I really want to
play, and don't want to try D/L'ing on my 56K modem. Newsgroups and trusted
review sites give me the info I need now.
I still miss having the *real* CGW though - great reading material for the
can :-)
--
Ken's Sig 3.01
"Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" -
Obi-Wan Kenobi
Go #43 and #44!
volksy (at) yahoo (dot) com
Douglas S. Hillman <d...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:s26ull...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Stan Trevena <stre...@lodinet.com> wrote in message
> news:s24o99...@corp.supernews.com...
> > PC Gamer really pulled out ahead of CGW a year or so ago. I remember
when
> > most would not give PC Gamer the time of day. Now their reviews are
more
> on
> > the mark, the magazine seems more solid and polished than CGW. PC Gamer
> > maintains it's heft, while CGW shrinks and shrinks. It's not going to
be
> > long before they are back to late 70's page counts (anyone who's been
> around
> > any length of time remembers how thin CGW was way back then). Add to
this
> > the stupid moves by their marketing dept. of late and you have a
disaster
> in
> > progress. Jump JUMP! Quick, get out of the blast radius.
> >
>
> I'd give ANYTHING to have CGW back to being the mag it was
> for about the first decade of it's existence. The page counts
> may have been lower, but by and golly those pages were FILLED
> with actual WORDS!
>
Antos Dragon
cabinet...one is the 100th anniversary issue-1992, another is one from
1994 with "Scorpia's sting" regarding RPG's and Ultima IV. (this was
after zdnet bought them). And a few others (one with "The Two
Towers", and another with the Ultima VII review (that was missing the
"end part"). Yes indeed...1-4 page reviews, even in the newer one.
Very impressive...and when compared to today... well...there simply is
no comparison. Those reviews are simply filled with substance.
(although it does seem that the 1992 issues were a bit better overall
than the newer 1994 ones).
But today, the issues are junk. Nothing else to say. I've seen
usenet posts filled with more substance than some of the stuff in
these mags now... no wonder I never stop by the newsstand for hours to
read them anymore...
remove the "NOSPAM" in my email address to email me via
usenet reply...
Antos Dragon
-==(UDIC)==-
Annie Jaisser
>On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:25:09 -0800, "Stan Trevena"
><stre...@lodinet.com> wrote:
>
>>Give me a break!!! You obviously have never done reviews. I wrote for
>>CGW/Ziff for quite a spell (stopped in '95). They pay (or at least used to)
>>by the word. If memory serves, it was around $.065/word back then. Let's
>>give some inflation and make it $.10/word for this example. For the
>>Disciples (112 words) Quick Take review you would pull down a piddly $11.
>>I'm sure that Jeff just sat there and played out every quest and saga for
>>that check. Actually, the writer's guidelines state that with strategy
>>titles you need to spend enough time to get a good feel for the overall
>>game. If he spent an hour with the game I would be shocked. I think that
>>these "Quick Takes" should be renamed "MisTakes". I love Jeff's back column
>>article (it's actually the first thing I read when I get a new issue). His
>>humor is great and I always get a laugh. So don't get me wrong, I'm not
>>trashing his writing, maybe he (or better yet CGW) should just stay out of
>>the Quick Take business. I don't care that he's "on staff" (ie: not a
>>freelancer), there's no way that he gave Disciples the time "required" (as
>>you point out) by CGW reviewers. A quick read around this group will tell
>>you that much. (and Skydive's Quick Take pulled down 2 stars??? Higher than
>>Disciples? yeah right).
>
>Yeah, I think the quick takes probably shouldn't have ratings. Let the
>text convey the reviewer's thoughts. If Jeff didn't like Disciples
>because he felt it was a HOMM knockoff, that's a valid opinion. Like
>you, though, I think it warrants a higher rating.
Well, as Usenet Goat Of The Week, I guess I'll chime in.
All I can really say though, is: what can I say? I didn't like the
game. I think that this "quick takes" format is extremely problematic
though--I agree--mainly because it didn't allow me to really get into
anything. I had to get in and get out--and it just comes across as
flip and dismissive (and yeah, I do NOT want to write those anymore).
I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge that maybe--for whatever
individual, subjective biases I have (and which every reviewer in any
medium has), I might have been too harsh. Nevertheless, I did play it
a lot, and I have gone back and played it more after receiving so much
flak about it. I'm not a defensive guy, and I'm not afraid to admit
I'm wrong---but I still don't like it a whole lot. I think there
*are* some cool features but not enough to make it feel original
enough to ME. It seems to me there's way better alternatives for the
money--like Warlords.
That's just me, though. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe someone else should
have reviewed it. All I can do is go with what I know and think.
Every reviewer tries to get it right, but sometimes their opinion is
just gonna go against the flow sometimes. The guy who was my favorite
reviewer in the S.F. Chronicle completely TRASHED The Matrix, a movie
I thought was the best sci-fi film in years. I was furious. I thought
he was an idiot. I thought he must not have been paying attention or
seen the whole movie. But what're you gonna do? It happens. Two days
later he wrote a review of another movie, and I totally agreed with
him again. I think my track record is mostly good. The last strategy
game I reviewed for CGW was Jagged Alliance 2 , which I gave a 4.5
(out of 5) ---which I think jibes with Usenet consensus.
Did I get it wrong this time? I dunno. From a lot of people here, it
appears I did. All I can say is I hope people keep reading. If you
find yourself constantly disagreeing with me, then we know where we
stand, right? I must be an idiot. This is just one of those cases
where something in my DNA couldn't get around this game.
The idea behind these small reviews was just to be able to get more
games in for review--rather than not run them at all. It was a lesser
of two evil things given our smaller page counts. And maybe they do
work for stuff like bull riding games, but I'd agree that strategy
games---even (or especially) ones we don't like, should get more space
so the reviewer can adequately cover them. It's duly noted, and
we're gonna reconsider this whole thing in the next couple months.
-
Jeff Green
Computer Gaming World
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
Jaisser) wrote:
>The idea behind these small reviews was just to be able to get more
>games in for review--rather than not run them at all. It was a lesser
>of two evil things given our smaller page counts. And maybe they do
>work for stuff like bull riding games, but I'd agree that strategy
>games---even (or especially) ones we don't like, should get more space
>so the reviewer can adequately cover them. It's duly noted, and
>we're gonna reconsider this whole thing in the next couple months.
>
>-
>
>Jeff Green
>Computer Gaming World
Is it really the lesser of two evils, though? My concern is that
people read these quick takes, which may or may not offer the reviewer
enough time to really play the game in-depth or adequetely express
his/her opinions. If consumers make purchasing decisions on
inadequetely expressed opinions, based on insufficient time wth a
specific product, is that flawed data really better then no data at
all?
Quatoria
--
In the pursuit of knowledge,
every day something is added.
In the practice of Tao,
every day something is dropped.
Less and less do you need to force things,
until finally you arrive at non-action.
When nothing is done,
nothing is left un-done.
-Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching
Stan Trevena
- Stan Trevena
Mark Asher <ma...@cdmnet.com> wrote in message
news:38247b5f...@news.primary.net...
Stan Trevena
for CGW for several years ('90-'95) and got fired up when the original
poster stated that "all reviews are played all the way through". You've
already read what I wrote, so you know where I was coming from. I did not
have a problem with your writing, my frustration is with the format of the
QuickTakes. I don't think they add anything to the magazine, and they go
against everything CGW has stood for in the past.
I have to say that I have not enjoyed a back page column, as much as I enjoy
yours, since Penn Jillette was doing the back page of PC Computing many
years ago. His one hook was to work Uma Thurman into every article. Drove
the straight lace business types crazy and was ultimately the demise of his
column. Anyone remember when he tried to introduce the term "Thurman Unit"
into the collective vocabulary of computer geeks everywhere? Back then I
worked in an IS shop and we always would post his April Fools 800 number for
ordering the featured "state-of-the-art" box every year. People would fall
for it every time.
My big time "miss" when I was writing reviews was Myst. The game did not do
much for me and my review reflected that (was on the CGW Prodigy edition,
Alan Emerich was my editor). Boy did I completely miss the mark on that
one<g>. And people were not shy to tell me how I was totally out of touch
with Myst. Also did the walkthrough (can still be found on the Internet if
you search on myst +trevena). Had a call from the lawyers because it was
reprinted in a CD-ROM magazine in England soon after it was put on-line on
Prodigy.
Keep up the great work on the back page and dump those QuickTakes. They
will be a never ending source of frustration for the magazine because they
can't be done right with their length and lack of focus. If they do nothing
else, drop the star ratings.
- Stan Trevena
>
> Did I get it wrong this time? I dunno. From a lot of people here, it
> appears I did. All I can say is I hope people keep reading. If you
> find yourself constantly disagreeing with me, then we know where we
> stand, right? I must be an idiot. This is just one of those cases
> where something in my DNA couldn't get around this game.
>
Stan Trevena
coerced into softening reviews-I had always assumed that CGW was above that
edge off a harsh review. I remember one specifically, Hyperspeed from
Microprose. I hated the game and made no bones about it. The majority of
my review was left intact, it was the closing statements that were reworded.
There are many ways to word something, some more agreeable than others.
Sometimes the softening would take place after the review was submitted (and
it was almost always applied to the closing paragraph), it's called
editorial freedom. You agree to this when you sign on under the agreement
with the publisher. One time my review was totally and completely changed
(don't remember which one), and I got a lot of heat for it. I was so ticked
off I was tempted to post the original article on-line for all to see what I
had originally wrote. Unfortunately, that is not permitted because you sell
all rights to the work when you submit it to the publisher. You get over it
and move on, that's life in the publishing business.
PLEASE, don't let this comment of mine turn into the same old conspiracy
theory thread about the magazines being in the publishers pockets. They
have a symbiotic relationship with the game publishers, and they're not
going to kill each other off at the expense of the partner. Why do you
think magazines have editors, to make sure that the content complies with
the magazine's editorial policy. Go pull some of my reviews between ('90 -
'95, printed mag was probably '90 - '93 with the online Prodigy edition
filling out the time). I had many reviews that were not glowing on a
specific title. Almost any "bad" review will often close with a caveat of
"but if you like <blank> type of game, or are a fan of <blank> you will
probably still want to give this one a try". Spin it a hundred different
ways, it's just a way of not putting that final nail in the coffin after a
scorching review. Whether it's done to pacify the game publisher, or to
leave a way out for an "off the mark" review, it's done over and over again
in many magazines. Pick up any review magazine and you will see ample
evidence of the practice. It's not a conspiracy, it's the nature of the
business.
- Stan Trevena
----- Original Message -----
From: John DiFool <jdi...@earthlink.net>
Newsgroups:
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure,comp.sys.ibm.pc
.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 1999 11:04 AM
Subject: Re: Whats wrong with Computer Gaming World!!??
>
> Excellent posts Stan-really appreciate an insider "telling it like it
is."
> I was
> particularly amazed that you were coerced into softening reviews-I had
always
> assumed that CGW was above that kind of thing. :-p
> In any event we have been here before-remember the Atari glut in the
early
Stan Trevena
review of Mantis in that issue (a dog of a game). I just dragged my box of
old issues out of the attic. What a trip down memory lane. I found a
letter in issue #87 that came with the magazine and check that month. You
will probably find it amusing given the context of the current discussion.
Here's a snippet:
"If this issue looks big, the next one will be weighing in at 165 pages.
That's #88, our 10th anniversary issue. There will be a new look to the
magazine, plus the commencement of Computer Wargaming World (kind of a
magazine-within-the-magazine) just for wargame coverage."
Now there's a blast from the past. The letter was from my editor at the
time, Alan Emerich, who holds wargames very near and dear to his heart.
Alan had a great article on his website (not sure if it's still up) called
"The Death of the Strategy Guide". I remember him telling the story of
finishing one of his guides on his honeymoon on a laptop computer. That's
dedication to your writing<g>.
Also stumbled on the "Survey Section" that was in the old mag format. This
had a list of games, all with a graphic and a paragraph describing the game.
Looks like QuickTakes may be a new spin on this old theme. This section
always allowed them to put the corner banner on the cover of "100 Games
Rated!" when in actuality there were a dozen or so actual reviews in the
mag.
The Hall of Fame had a whopping 20 games in it!
- Stan Trevena
Antos Dragon <kyle...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com> wrote in message
news:AJgkOJYl9ldVm5...@4ax.com...
Gern Blensten
Jeff Green <doof...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3824d73a....@news.mindspring.com...
> "Stan Trevena" <stre...@lodinet.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >Keep up the great work on the back page and dump those QuickTakes. They
> >will be a never ending source of frustration for the magazine because
they
> >can't be done right with their length and lack of focus. If they do
nothing
> >else, drop the star ratings.
>
>
> Thank you again--and duly noted on the suggestions.
> I'll bring it up.
Couldn't agree more, the QuickTakes are in my opinion a waste of space that
could be better used for other reviews... who care about titles like Head
Games' "Extreme!House Painting" or WizardWorks' "3D House of Beef"
Also, to find out why I'll be taking Jeff Green's job shortly, check out my
link below... Hey CGW! I'll write your back page column for HALF PRICE!!!
(Just kidding, Jeff - I love your columns!)
---------
Visit http://www.erols.com/otteaux for some fresh, independent, and humorous
(hopefully) gaming editorials.
Jeff Green
> as Usenet Goat Of The Week, I guess I'll chime in.
>
>[snip a lot of defensiveness]
Heh heh. I tried to not sound defensive. Wait--that's defensive too.
>Well, Jeff, plattitudes first, then suggestions.
>
>Greenespeak is the best part of CGW. Period.
Thank you!
>Now, for the suggestions.
>
[snip lots of good suggestions...]
>
>By breaking coverage down along the arbitrary "genre lines" developed
>by retailers (who know little about games), the magazines segment
>their audience instead of uniting it. Unless your long term vision is
>to publish a Strategy mag and an Action mag, and an Adventure mag,
>etc., then why break it down? Break it down by writer instead. Who
>would have cared about what Siskel OR Ebert thought about the movies
>they watched? It was their arguing that made them famous. It's the
>arguing on Usenet that makes it informative. Games magazines have none
>of that, so there is no sense of objectivity. Sometimes it makes the
>writers look downright foolish.
>
It's an interesting point, and one we talk about *all* the time. We
actually just talked about it last week. The general consensus seems
to be, at *some* time in the future--undetermined at this point--the
genre breakdowns will have to go. Because they're becoming obsolete,
in many cases. What is Drakan? Action or adventure? What is Rage Of
Mages 2--strategy or RPG? And does it really help anyone to break
things down that way? Sometimes I think yes, other times, more often
now, I'm not so sure....
[snip more stuff]
>I realize you're not in charge, and most of this is totally beyond
>your control. You could however, bring these thoughts to the powers
>that be and hold a gun to their heads until they listen. :)
Well, believe it or not, most of the editors read these forums and
take them very seriously. We may lurk a lot, but nothing goes
unnoticed here. And when there's legitimate concerns, we talk about
'em. The input is appreciated----really.
>Whew, sorry, I don't know how that soap box got in there... Did I
>happen to mention that I really like your column? I read CGW backwards
>because of it.
>
Thanks again. The check is in the mail! :)
Jeff Green
wrote:
>Is it really the lesser of two evils, though? My concern is that
>people read these quick takes, which may or may not offer the reviewer
>enough time to really play the game in-depth or adequetely express
>his/her opinions. If consumers make purchasing decisions on
>inadequetely expressed opinions, based on insufficient time wth a
>specific product, is that flawed data really better then no data at
>all?
>
>Quatoria
Quatoria,
Well, right. That's what I think *now*. Having been burned by the
process. It's tough. If are pages are low, then we're really between
a rock and a hard place on games like this. The *best* alternative, I
suppose, would be to post them on the Web instead, but our Web site is
a whole other can o' worms, and don't make me go there.....
But, yeah. These mini-reviews don't do much good for anyone involved.
Lesson learned (by me, at least.)
Jeff Green
>Jeff: I may have come across a little harsh in my message as well. I wrote
>for CGW for several years ('90-'95) and got fired up when the original
>poster stated that "all reviews are played all the way through". You've
>already read what I wrote, so you know where I was coming from. I did not
>have a problem with your writing, my frustration is with the format of the
>QuickTakes. I don't think they add anything to the magazine, and they go
>against everything CGW has stood for in the past.
I do know where you're coming from, so no need to back off the post. I
can take it. I feel like that quick take thing is not a good
format---not for me anyway. We talked about it a LOT before we did
it. We knew it was a big deal to try it, especially those of us who
have been around forever and know what "the old days" are all about.
(I'm 38). So---that format is under review. Like I said
previously, we may just try to keep it to "smaller" releases---add-on
packs, etc. But full-blown, big games like Disciples should probably
not get that kind of treatment.
>
>I have to say that I have not enjoyed a back page column, as much as I enjoy
>yours, since Penn Jillette was doing the back page of PC Computing many
>years ago. His one hook was to work Uma Thurman into every article. Drove
>the straight lace business types crazy and was ultimately the demise of his
>column. Anyone remember when he tried to introduce the term "Thurman Unit"
>into the collective vocabulary of computer geeks everywhere? Back then I
>worked in an IS shop and we always would post his April Fools 800 number for
>ordering the featured "state-of-the-art" box every year. People would fall
>for it every time.
>
Thank you!! I remember Jillette's column and LOVED it. So I'll
consider that good company indeed. Actually, before Denny Atkin took
off for some OTHER gaming magazine, he was considering trying to work
in Janeane Garofolo (sp??) into every issue. Then he left---the
bastard. :)
>My big time "miss" when I was writing reviews was Myst. The game did not do
>much for me and my review reflected that (was on the CGW Prodigy edition,
>Alan Emerich was my editor). Boy did I completely miss the mark on that
>one<g>. And people were not shy to tell me how I was totally out of touch
>with Myst. Also did the walkthrough (can still be found on the Internet if
>you search on myst +trevena). Had a call from the lawyers because it was
>reprinted in a CD-ROM magazine in England soon after it was put on-line on
>Prodigy.
This is the first time I've been smacked hard for a review. It's a
hazard of the job, I guess. And I suppose I was due. A little
humility never hurt anyone.
>Keep up the great work on the back page and dump those QuickTakes. They
>will be a never ending source of frustration for the magazine because they
>can't be done right with their length and lack of focus. If they do nothing
>else, drop the star ratings.
Thank you again--and duly noted on the suggestions.
I'll bring it up.
pym...@my-deja.com
"Gern Blensten" <evil...@antisocial.com> wrote:
>
> I wish my argument WAS childish, but it's not. Also, I wasn't
specifically
> referring to YOU in my argument, it was just a generalization - one
that I
> happen to think is true... Sometimes it seems that certain folks
can't get
> past the company that MAKES a product in order to actually form a
decent
> opinion ABOUT the product itself.
>
> I know its fun to "bash" people across an anonymous forum, but
your "Art
> Bell" and your "no relation in reality" comments were really uncalled
for.
> I was just stating an opinion.
Okay, sorry, I didn't mean to sound so harsh. Your original message
makes it sound as if your dismissing any complaints against CGW as
being part a witch hunt. If you've ever listened to Art Bell's show,
you know that this kind of reasoning pops up a lot. The guests
commonly assert that if you don't believe their wild claims, then you
must be acting out your evil agenda. It can't possibly be that you're
skeptical, or that you disagree with their reasoning. (My reaction to
Art Bell's show has gone from amusement to irritation to loathing over
the last couple of years. Perhaps this explains my reaction, or
overreaction, to your message.)
Anyway, the point is that a few years an issue of CGW could be my
bathroom entertainment for a couple of weeks. Now it barely lasts one
go. It isn't worth the money anymore.
Don't worry, though - I'm not going to sit here whining about it. I
sent my subscription card in to PC Gamer this afternoon. I *won't* be
renewing my subscription to CGW. That takes care of that, eh?
Mark Asher
<stre...@lodinet.com> wrote:
>That's one star more that I've heard most have given it<g>
heh -- well, I don't even know if I could have given it zero stars.
One star may be as low as they go.
I'm almost convinced that even reviewing obvious trash titles may be a
bad idea. All you're doing is giving a bad title publicity. Better to
let it sink without acknowledging it. Give that slot to a more
deserving game.
Mark Asher
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
wrote:
>But, yeah. These mini-reviews don't do much good for anyone involved.
>Lesson learned (by me, at least.)
>Jeff Green
>Computer Gaming World
Well, that's all anyone can reasonably expect. You make the mistake,
you recognize the mistake, and you move on. If I was a subscriber to
your magazine, I certainly wouldn't cancel my subscription over it.
LHeilb8013
>work for stuff like bull riding games, but I'd agree that strategy
>games---even (or especially) ones we don't like, should get more space
>so the reviewer can adequately cover them. It's duly noted, and
>we're gonna reconsider this whole thing in the next couple months.
>
>-
>
>Computer Gaming World
>
>
Or you could skip the bullriding reviews completely and give more space to real
games. Do you really think the bullriding audience reads reviews???
Lloyd Heilbrunn
Roderick Pommier
> process. It's tough. If are pages are low, then we're really between
> a rock and a hard place on games like this. The *best* alternative, I
> suppose, would be to post them on the Web instead, but our Web site is
> a whole other can o' worms, and don't make me go there.....
please do go there jeff... i've emailed a couple of times about that
website... to put it bluntly, it stinks. why do you guys even bother to
maintain it? for what used to be a top notch site, what you have now is
horrible. i remember a couple of years ago when the CGW site was "THE"
place to be. it had a sense of community, and all sorts of goodies that
supplemented the magazine nicely, i really enjoyed the message boards...
i've always regarded CGW as an innovator, but now it's just another gaming
mag.
rod...
> But, yeah. These mini-reviews don't do much good for anyone involved.
> Lesson learned (by me, at least.)
trish_mela
noticed the magazine getting thinner per issue. Maybe with Christmas
it will come back around. PC Gamer has improved though. PC Gamer
unfortunately really favors shooting games in its articles and
reviews. I think their reviews of strategy games often miss the mark
too.
In article <yvUhOGO1emWAwk...@4ax.com>,
Mad Aardvark of Doom <guy...@usa.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 11:50:30 -0600, Bill Seurer
> <BillS...@vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> >It is probably in its death throes.
> >
> >Take a look at Computer Shopper sometime to see another "magazine" on
> >its way out. Two years ago you practically needed a forklift to
move an
> >issue while the latest ones are maybe 1/3 the size.
>
> Tech column aside, is it just me, or has PC Gamer gotten better as CGW
> has gotten worse? It's like, Lloyd Case does the best hardware section
> in a gaming mag, but the PC Gamer is a better magazine overall(except
> for the console bashing.)
>
> --
> Mad Aardvark of Doom(Formerly Poster Formerly Known as Guyver3)
> Nifty new name. Same old spam-trap Netaddress account.
Jeff Green
> please do go there jeff... i've emailed a couple of times about that
>website... to put it bluntly, it stinks. why do you guys even bother to
>maintain it? for what used to be a top notch site, what you have now is
>horrible. i remember a couple of years ago when the CGW site was "THE"
>place to be. it had a sense of community, and all sorts of goodies that
>supplemented the magazine nicely, i really enjoyed the message boards...
>i've always regarded CGW as an innovator, but now it's just another gaming
>mag.
>
>rod...
We know the web site stinks. It's stunk for years. I can't go there
really cuz it's a political sinkhole. The problem is: CGW has
nothing to do with that website. It ain't ours. We have no one on the
CGW staff--NO ONE--who has anything to do with it. ZD bought Gamespot
a few years back to be the official ZD gaming website. We were
ostensibly given our own home on that site, though as you can see it's
obviously a second-, third- or fourth- rate priority to those in
charge. You ask why we even bother to maintain it? Well, WE never did
maintain it, and it sure doesn't look like anyone does now, does it?
What's the lead story up there? Isn't it the same thing that's been
there for like 3 months? See, WE don't even go there. It doesn't
exist. Feh. See, you got me started.
Jeff Green
>Changing your email address? What next, drowing a thick mustache and
>wearing a parrot on your shoulder?!
My first post was inadvertently on my wife's account. Her life is
hard enough without getting email from angry CGW readers. :) So I
switched to my account. I do have a parrot on my shoulder though.
It's a fetish.
>But what about multiple viewpoints in a review or a preview?
Well, it's worth considering.....but I've never liked the way that's
worked out in other mags that have tried that. I dunno. I like
getting one solid opinion from someone who knows what they're talking
about. But multiple opinions does have obvious value....
Charybdis
> worked out in other mags that have tried that. I dunno. I like
> getting one solid opinion from someone who knows what they're talking
> about. But multiple opinions does have obvious value....
My 2 pence (I seem to spend whole weekends trying to find copies of CGW in
the UK because I hate the English version!) - I dislike multiple opinions on
games, frequently you end up with one person saying "Yeah, it's the best
game in its class that I've ever played" and another saying "This is the
worst piece of rubbish I've ever seen". On average, the review doesn't
exist :-) The only other thing which can happen is for both people to
agree - in which case, again, it's pointless to have a second opinion.
- Richard
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
I like situations where two people radically disagree on the quality
of a game, if they both give out well defined reasons for their likes
and dislikes. In a situation like that, you're most likely to find out
the pertinent information you need to make an informed purchase.
Reviewers are only human, and have this natural tendancy to gloss over
(or just not mind) some bad points of games they love, or ignore (or
not like) the good facets of games they loathe. With a two man team,
one loving a game, one hating it, you'd get a more complete shakedown
on what it's really all about.
Terry McKelvey
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind... wrote in message ...
>>Lesson learned (by me, at least.)
>>Computer Gaming World
>
>you recognize the mistake, and you move on. If I was a subscriber to
>your magazine, I certainly wouldn't cancel my subscription over it.
>
My sentiment exactly. I am keeping my subscription for now.
Terry McKelvey
Jeff Lackey
said something kinda like:
>We know the web site stinks. It's stunk for years. I can't go there
>really cuz it's a political sinkhole. The problem is: CGW has
>nothing to do with that website. It ain't ours. We have no one on the
>CGW staff--NO ONE--who has anything to do with it. ZD bought Gamespot
>a few years back to be the official ZD gaming website. We were
>ostensibly given our own home on that site, though as you can see it's
>obviously a second-, third- or fourth- rate priority to those in
>charge. You ask why we even bother to maintain it? Well, WE never did
>maintain it, and it sure doesn't look like anyone does now, does it?
>What's the lead story up there? Isn't it the same thing that's been
>there for like 3 months? See, WE don't even go there. It doesn't
>exist. Feh. See, you got me started.
>Jeff Green
>Computer Gaming World
And, (as Jeff knows, becaused I've griped to him about it,) it stinks
for those of us who freelance for CGW. I've got a review up on the
website that they transcribed from my magazine review - they have so
many typos and so much left-out punctiation (commas, semi-colons,
etc.) that I am really, REALLY embarrased that my name is on the
article. I am angry that this is up and people may read it and think
that I write like that. My plea to the email address of the webmaster
has been ignored.
Jeff Lackey
fcage
issue but I found it online at Gamespot which then sent me to Ziff Davis's
web site. I personally would rather have this in the magazine than reading
online. It's just not the same looking at it online. I looked at it and it
wasn't interesting or not as trustworthy to me. Seeing it on paper I think
makes it more convincing. There's so many crappy web sites that give bad
reviews that I don't really trust any of them when it comes to game reviews.
I usually will buy a game based on a combination of Computer Gaming World
and PC Gamers review. The newsgroups are ok if there's an overwhelming
praise for a game but usually I don't see that.
fcage wrote:
> For those who don't know its a magazine.
>
> Has anyone noticed how small the Nov. and Dec. issues are this year. I
> received my DEC. issue yesterday and was shocked at how small it was. I
> dug out my Dec 98 issue and its almost half the size and its as small as
> June 98's issue. The worst time for gaming news. Spring/Summer is when I
> expect skinny magazines not NOV. and DEC. I don't know about anyone else
> but I really enjoy cracking open the huge issues building up to
> Christmas and reading and rereading about all the excellent games and
> hardware I want. I even enjoy looking at the advertisements. They
> sometimes let you know what's coming out within a year or sometimes 2 or
> 3 :-).
>
> Oh well, at least my Nov. PC gamer issue isn't on a diet and hopefully
> the December issue will have finished Thanksgiving dinner by the time I
> receive it :-).
Ken Beard
game or something. I got like 2 normal issues, then started getting the
"lite" version. At first, I was looking for the rest of the reviews, and
couldn't find them. Then, I stopped getting any of 'em.
Strangely enough, it didn't entice me to subscribe....
--
Ken's Sig 3.01
"Who is the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?" -
Obi-Wan Kenobi
Go #43 and #44!
volksy (at) yahoo (dot) com
Robert L. Mullen <rlmu...@SENDNOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3823136c....@news.mindspring.com...
> On Fri, 05 Nov 1999 00:28:01 GMT, rob...@bcpl.net (Baron Calamity)
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 04 Nov 1999 10:54:29 -0500, fcage <fc...@us.hsanet.net> wrote:
> >
> >>For those who don't know its a magazine.
> >>
> >>Has anyone noticed how small the Nov. and Dec. issues are this year. I
> >>received my DEC. issue yesterday and was shocked at how small it was.
> >
> >
> >I noticed that too. Computer Gaming (use to include Strategy Plus) is
> >getting really small as well. I wouldn't be surprised if online web
> >sites are starting to kill magazing circulation.
> >--
>
> Here is something interesting: I have two subscriptions to Computer
> Gaming (strat +). Actually one subscription belongs to my
> girlfriend... I think I actually sent the registration card for a game
> I bought her last year. Last month I got my normal two issues, but
> one is twice the size of the other. The larger issue had three
> "bonus" sections that were not included in the smaller issue... these
> bonus sections comprised approximately 20 to 30 pages. The bonus
> sections were mainly reviews!!!
>
> What's up with this!!
>
> Later,
> Rob
Mark Asher
>>And maybe they do
>>work for stuff like bull riding games, but I'd agree that strategy
>>games---even (or especially) ones we don't like, should get more space
>>so the reviewer can adequately cover them. It's duly noted, and
>>we're gonna reconsider this whole thing in the next couple months.
>>
>>Jeff Green
>>Computer Gaming World
>
>Or you could skip the bullriding reviews completely and give more space to real
>games. Do you really think the bullriding audience reads reviews???
Ya know, this is an interesting one. I heard that some people who
played it at E3 actually thought it was kind of fun. This is the type
of game that is odd enough that it piques my curiousity, so yes, I'd
like to read a review of it just to see what it's all about.
It's kind of like reviews of flight sims. I'm not a flight simmer,
although I do like the space sims. Still, I like to check out some of
the flight sim reviews just so I know what's going on with that genre.
I'm interested enough to read about the games, but not enough to play.
Mark Asher
Mark Asher
wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 09:22:45 GMT, doof...@hotmail.com (Jeff Green)
>said something kinda like:
>
>>We know the web site stinks. It's stunk for years. I can't go there
>>really cuz it's a political sinkhole. The problem is: CGW has
>>nothing to do with that website. It ain't ours. We have no one on the
>>CGW staff--NO ONE--who has anything to do with it. ZD bought Gamespot
>>a few years back to be the official ZD gaming website. We were
>>ostensibly given our own home on that site, though as you can see it's
>>obviously a second-, third- or fourth- rate priority to those in
>>charge. You ask why we even bother to maintain it? Well, WE never did
>>maintain it, and it sure doesn't look like anyone does now, does it?
>>What's the lead story up there? Isn't it the same thing that's been
>>there for like 3 months? See, WE don't even go there. It doesn't
>>exist. Feh. See, you got me started.
>>Jeff Green
>>Computer Gaming World
>
>And, (as Jeff knows, becaused I've griped to him about it,) it stinks
>for those of us who freelance for CGW. I've got a review up on the
>website that they transcribed from my magazine review - they have so
>many typos and so much left-out punctiation (commas, semi-colons,
>etc.) that I am really, REALLY embarrased that my name is on the
>article. I am angry that this is up and people may read it and think
>that I write like that. My plea to the email address of the webmaster
>has been ignored.
Yeah, it's too bad CGW can't leverage the web side of things better. I
have a preview of Sovereign in the latest issue, and of course print
articles have to be pretty short. I could easily have written some
more stuff for inclusion in an expanded web article that the magazine
could have directed readers to. I had much more information that I
could have fit in even a cover story article.
To my thinking, the only magazine that has good synergy with its web
site is CGS+ and CGO. Of course I absolutely hate their website look
with all the frames and the ads that pop up and make you click through
them when you want to read an article.
Oh well, maybe print and web marriages are just not meant to be. <g>
Mark Asher
Dan
>I wouldn't worry about CGW if I were you. The detractors are
>displaying some serious wishful thinking.
>5. Many people will hate a mag just because it is part of the Ziff-
>Davis family. Please.
It's hard to deny that the magazine deteriorated rapidly when it was
taken over by ZD.
All one has to do is dig up a copy from '92-93 and compare to today.
Once they were a high-quality niche publication targeted at a
relatively sophisticated readership. These days, why even bother with
printed mags ?
Jeff Lackey
something kinda like:
>To my thinking, the only magazine that has good synergy with its web
>site is CGS+ and CGO. Of course I absolutely hate their website look
>with all the frames and the ads that pop up and make you click through
>them when you want to read an article.
>
>
>Mark Asher
Yep, I started my writing in this genre with CGS+/CGO (and still do
some writing for them in addition to the CGW stuff;) I can tell you
that the editors over there don't like the website layout any more
than we do. ;) And they do tie the two together quite well - there
have been times that an article need to be cut down for the print mag,
but they still ran the longer article on the web page. It's also
interesting that your article typically hits the web page well before
the print version is out, a philosophy 180 degrees from the CGW
practice.
Jeff Lackey
Bob Roseman
dri...@hotmail.com Dan wrote in message ...><snip>. These days, why even bother with printed mags ?
Because it's *faster* than the net!!!! "~}
Bob R
Mark Asher
wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 00:00:35 GMT, ma...@cdmnet.com (Mark Asher) said
And the PC Gamer practice as well. I'd probably check out their
website more often if they posted their articles there when they
appeared in print, instead of after they appear in print. Of course,
they are doing quite well in the circ wars, so I doubt they want to
upset the applecart.
About CGO -- I'd probably hit that site once or twice a day instead of
once a week if the layout was friendlier. And yes, I've emailed them
that sentiment, so I've done my part.
Mark Asher
Sam Liao
<snip>
> >Yep, I started my writing in this genre with CGS+/CGO (and still do
> >some writing for them in addition to the CGW stuff;) I can tell you
> >that the editors over there don't like the website layout any more
> >than we do. ;) And they do tie the two together quite well - there
> >have been times that an article need to be cut down for the print mag,
> >but they still ran the longer article on the web page. It's also
> >interesting that your article typically hits the web page well before
> >the print version is out, a philosophy 180 degrees from the CGW
> >practice.
>
> And the PC Gamer practice as well. I'd probably check out their
> website more often if they posted their articles there when they
> appeared in print, instead of after they appear in print. Of course,
> they are doing quite well in the circ wars, so I doubt they want to
> upset the applecart.
I think the fundamental difference is that PCG and CGW actually needs
their magazine to be popular to sell ad space and make money, whereas
CGS+ makes their money from Chips & Bits, and the magazine is just like
an additional freebie. (Do they still have the policy of buying a game
from C&G and you get a free subscription for one year?)
Jeff Lackey
something kinda like:
>
>About CGO -- I'd probably hit that site once or twice a day instead of
>once a week if the layout was friendlier. And yes, I've emailed them
>that sentiment, so I've done my part.
>
>Mark Asher
My understanding is that the magazine publisher himself decided on
that format - every editor I've talked to would prefer a different
design. The publisher of CGM/CGO apparently takes a very "hands on"
approach... ;)
Jeff Lackey
Jeff Lackey
<stre...@lodinet.com> said something kinda like:
>In my years of reviewing I had several reviews
>softened up because they (CGW) did not want to alienate the company
>(Microprose comes to mind off the top) due to a harsh review.
Stan,
This comment REALLY surprises me. I've been freelancing for CGS+ and
now CGW for a while, several years total. While I've seen some odd
things here and there, I've NEVER had an editor soften a review. I've
had a few express surprise when I harshly criticized a highly
publicized and highly anticipated game, but I can honestly say I've
never had an editor change a single word to soften a review. I'd leave
so fast that I'd leave skid marks if that happened.
A trend that I don't like, as a writer and a reader (I'm an old fart,
42, been playing computer games since the Ziploc days,) is the shorter
word counts. I thought 750 words for a one-pager at CGS+ was tough -
600 at CGW is murder. Even a two pager (about 1200 words) is a
challenge, as you try to describe the game well enough to let the
reader make up his own mind as to whether he would like or hate the
game, in addition to expressing your own opinions.
Jeff Lackey
NOSPAM dduma
>><snip>. These days, why even bother with printed mags ?
>
>Because it's *faster* than the net!!!! "~}
>
>Bob R
>
Yeah, and you can read it while taking a dump :)
Christoph Nahr
wrote:
>My understanding is that the magazine publisher himself decided on
>that format - every editor I've talked to would prefer a different
>design. The publisher of CGM/CGO apparently takes a very "hands on"
>approach... ;)
Now you've done it. Enough already. Now you've provoked my public
statement of support for the CGO web site.
I LIKE THE CGO WEB SITE.
There you have it. I'm the one person in the world who likes the
layout of the CGO web site. It's convenient and doesn't require you
to click through various sections and sub-sections to get to the
article you want. The only thing I don't like is the occasional ad
that you have to click through before you can read an article.
--
Chris Nahr (christo...@uumail.xxde, remove xx to reply by e-mail)
Please reply either on Usenet or by e-mail but not both!
Visit http://uuhome.de/christoph.nahr/ for Might & Magic information
and Star Chess, a strategy game with source code and AI documentation
Patrick C Miller
: This comment REALLY surprises me. I've been freelancing for CGS+ and
: now CGW for a while, several years total. While I've seen some odd
: things here and there, I've NEVER had an editor soften a review.
I have to agree with Jeff on this. In fact, the only time I've locked
horns the CGW editors was when they've lowered my recommended rating or
edited a review to sound more harsh than it was intended.
*****************************
Patrick C. Miller
pami...@plains.NoDak.edu
*****************************
Michael Oberly
>
>Now you've done it. Enough already. Now you've provoked my public
>statement of support for the CGO web site.
>
>I LIKE THE CGO WEB SITE.
>
>There you have it. I'm the one person in the world who likes the
>layout of the CGO web site. It's convenient and doesn't require you
>to click through various sections and sub-sections to get to the
>article you want. The only thing I don't like is the occasional ad
>that you have to click through before you can read an article.
Actually,Chris,I like it also,but most people seem to absolutely
despise it.
Mike
--
Mike Oberly * Rain can't wet me,
when I have my poui in my hand. *
* Rain can't wet me,
I advancing on the foe like a roaring lion!*
Soca/Calypso fan?Check out http://www.iere.com/thebarn
Patrick C Miller
: We know the web site stinks. It's stunk for years. I can't go there
: really cuz it's a political sinkhole.
What Jeff doesn't realize is that he's just been appointed chairman of
the CGW Web Site Troubleshooting Committee. ;-)
Jeff Lackey
Miller) said something kinda like:
>Jeff Lackey (jla...@home.com) wrote:
>
>: This comment REALLY surprises me. I've been freelancing for CGS+ and
>: now CGW for a while, several years total. While I've seen some odd
>: things here and there, I've NEVER had an editor soften a review.
>
> I have to agree with Jeff on this. In fact, the only time I've locked
>horns the CGW editors was when they've lowered my recommended rating or
>edited a review to sound more harsh than it was intended.
>
> *****************************
> Patrick C. Miller
> pami...@plains.NoDak.edu
> *****************************
Yeah, thinking about it, the only time I've ever had an editor make a
significant change was when Denny Atkin lowered my "rating" (how I
hate those stars) from 2.5 to 2.0, which he said he felt better
reflected my text. And he was correct, in fact I was in the process of
debating whether to lower it myself when Denny told me what he wanted
to do.
Jeff Lackey
Jeff Lackey
said something kinda like:
Man, that's such a commmon answer to why people still read magazines
that I think the publishers need to jump on this. Let's see, how can
you make your magazine more "bathroom friendly"...? <G>
Jeff Lackey
Mark Asher
wrote:
>Christoph Nahr <s...@sig.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Now you've done it. Enough already. Now you've provoked my public
>>statement of support for the CGO web site.
>>
>>I LIKE THE CGO WEB SITE.
>>
>>There you have it. I'm the one person in the world who likes the
>>layout of the CGO web site. It's convenient and doesn't require you
>>to click through various sections and sub-sections to get to the
>>article you want. The only thing I don't like is the occasional ad
>>that you have to click through before you can read an article.
>
>Actually,Chris,I like it also,but most people seem to absolutely
>despise it.
It's a slooooow-loading site and it's impossible to backspace out of
due to the cascade of banner ads. I just find it irritating to the
point of not wanting to go there most of the time.
Mark Asher
Steve Bartman
Miller) wrote:
>Jeff Green (doof...@hotmail.com) wrote:
>
>: We know the web site stinks. It's stunk for years. I can't go there
>: really cuz it's a political sinkhole.
>
> What Jeff doesn't realize is that he's just been appointed chairman of
>the CGW Web Site Troubleshooting Committee. ;-)
>
Task Force! Get your corporate-speak right!
Steve
JvG
>It's a slooooow-loading site
Not for me, loads in seconds.
Mark Asher
wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 05:04:44 GMT, dduma(NOSPAM)@megsinet.net (dduma)
Make the pages squeezably soft?
Mark Asher
Kirk Macdonald
>
> On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 05:04:44 GMT, dduma(NOSPAM)@megsinet.net (dduma)
> said something kinda like:
> >
> >>><snip>. These days, why even bother with printed mags ?
> >>
> >>Because it's *faster* than the net!!!! "~}
> >>
> >>Bob R
> >
> >Yeah, and you can read it while taking a dump :)
>
> Man, that's such a commmon answer to why people still read magazines
> that I think the publishers need to jump on this. Let's see, how can
> you make your magazine more "bathroom friendly"...? <G>
>
Softer paper!
;P
--
Kirk "Face it, I'm wrong!" Macdonald
Tyranid Tim Supporter and Usenet Pit Bull
Reply to : hag...@NOCHEESEgte.net - Remove NOCHEESE to reply
Mark Asher
Just time it. Took 47 seconds to load the entire page with my 56k
connection. It's not the time so much as the irritation factor.
Mark Asher
Stan Trevena
know there were more than a few that were changed, sometimes only a word or
two at the end, but they were still altered. "Softened" was the best word I
could come up with, because that was the end result of the changes. Maybe I
wrote crappy closing comments<g>, but in a few of the reviews it was a
surprise to read the review and then have the end have a different spin. I
remember opening up the review (printed) or paging down (On-line version) to
read the last paragraph to see if my closing had survived. I had some of
the old issues down over the weekend to refresh my memory (also have all my
on-line stuff from Prodigy on disk).
Here's one for you. I did a review of "Battle Bugs" from Sierra (back
around '94). They had funny names for the food (plop tarts, etc.). When
the review was posted someone had gone through and changed all the words
back to how they were supposed to be (pop tarts, etc.). Talk about
embarrassing!! I caught a lot of flack over that and kept telling people it
was changed after I turned it in. So it did happen. I was freelancing (had
a day job), so as long as I was getting my free games and a check for
writing down my reviews I was a happy guy. I stopped when my kids starting
getting into the computers and needing more of my time. Another factor was
the word counts (ie: cash) for each review was going down, and Ziff Davis
was having a hard time getting their checks out on time (and the right
amounts). Kind of took the fun out of it for me. Been playing for fun (and
for me) ever since. Now when I get a dog of a game I boot it back to the
store, rather than having to finish the darn thing for a review<bwg>.
BTW: I bought more than a few games, including early Sierra titles (and some
Hardware) from Brooks Hall in San Francisco at the West Coast Computer Fair
in Ziploc baggies (and my local Apple shop). Boxes were rare in the early
days (and all that damn snow you had to walk through to get to the store<g>,
both ways uphill). You've only got 6 years on me, we're both "old-timers"
in this game. Ever have a Fairchild cartridge system??? It was years ahead
of it's time (with some very strange joysticks).
- Stan Trevena
Jeff Lackey <jla...@home.com> wrote in message
news:EB91096BD2B9CFAC.CFF76D00...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Fri, 5 Nov 1999 17:25:09 -0800, "Stan Trevena"
> <stre...@lodinet.com> said something kinda like:
>
> >In my years of reviewing I had several reviews
> >softened up because they (CGW) did not want to alienate the company
> >(Microprose comes to mind off the top) due to a harsh review.
>
> Stan,
>
> This comment REALLY surprises me. I've been freelancing for CGS+ and
> now CGW for a while, several years total. While I've seen some odd
Stan Trevena
were ratings. I reviewed from '90-early '95. Mostly the editing was on the
on-line version of the mag (I did the printed mag early on, on-line later).
I still have all my files from those days, too bad the Prodigy mag is not
on-line anymore (we could do a little comparison of original vs. published).
Different editors have different methods. I can only speak from my
experiences. I probably did close to 70 reviews (I have just under 60 of
them on disk) in my time. Out of all of those, probably only a handful had
changes that made a difference in my mind.
- Stan Trevena
Jeff Lackey <jla...@home.com> wrote in message
news:33EFEC343857D7A7.C8DE04C1...@lp.airnews.net...
> On 9 Nov 1999 14:29:10 GMT, pami...@plains.NoDak.edu (Patrick C
> Miller) said something kinda like:
>
> >Jeff Lackey (jla...@home.com) wrote:
> >
> >: This comment REALLY surprises me. I've been freelancing for CGS+ and
> >: now CGW for a while, several years total. While I've seen some odd
> >: things here and there, I've NEVER had an editor soften a review.
> >
Atticus Feline
<3823AA8FB270DB89.40D01ABC...@lp.airnews.net>,
jla...@home.com (Jeff Lackey) wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 05:04:44 GMT, dduma(NOSPAM)@megsinet.net (dduma)
> said something kinda like:
>
> >
> >>><snip>. These days, why even bother with printed mags ?
> >>
> >>Because it's *faster* than the net!!!! "~}
> >>
> >>Bob R
> >>
> >
> >Yeah, and you can read it while taking a dump :)
>
> Man, that's such a commmon answer to why people still read magazines
> that I think the publishers need to jump on this. Let's see, how can
> you make your magazine more "bathroom friendly"...? <G>
>
> Jeff Lackey
>
>
Here's a few suggestions :
1) Easy-to-tear-out-pages magazine binding
2) Turning every page would eject a fragrant scent
3) More "Extreme-series" games reviews. Let's all have more reasons to
push harder while we do our "core dump"
4) Less "provocative" cleavage baring girl photos on the cover or
within the pages. Need to concentrate on kneading the "dough"
5)More Jeff Green columns. Laughter can induce more bowel motion.
--
+---------------------------------------------------+
| @=[="The meek shall inherit the Earth"==- |
|Meekness - Ability to bring emotions to submission.|
+---------------------------------------------------+
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
fongyee long
issue of CGW don't come with a Ultima Ascension Demo disc while it is
available for the folks who buy it from a newstand. That really show
how much CGW values their customers.
fongyee long
<kyle...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com> wrote:
>1994 with "Scorpia's sting" regarding RPG's and Ultima IV. (this was
I love her review. Who is she, really? And where is she now? Is she
doing any online review? I think she's not with CGW anymore, is she?
fongyee long
<stre...@lodinet.com> wrote:
>The Hall of Fame had a whopping 20 games in it!
>
Back then CGW's games that qualify for CGW's Hall Of Fame are those
that are truly respectable - making the HoF as well known as say
Academy Awards. I'm not so sure abt it nowadays.... :-(
Christoph Nahr
wrote:
>I love her review. Who is she, really? And where is she now? Is she
>doing any online review? I think she's not with CGW anymore, is she?
She left CGW in a huff and/or was kicked out, following dissonances
about her Baldur's Gate review. Now her assorted wisdom is only
available at her web site, http://www.scorpia.com/public/default.htm.
Beware, you have to pay before you are allowed to read her reviews...
smr
figure.
smr
"Christoph Nahr" <s...@sig.invalid> wrote in message
news:8iEoOFCuOhJMqI...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 20:40:52 -0500, jla...@home.com (Jeff Lackey)
> wrote:
>
> >My understanding is that the magazine publisher himself decided on
> >that format - every editor I've talked to would prefer a different
> >design. The publisher of CGM/CGO apparently takes a very "hands on"
> >approach... ;)
>
> Now you've done it. Enough already. Now you've provoked my public
> statement of support for the CGO web site.
>
> I LIKE THE CGO WEB SITE.
>
> There you have it. I'm the one person in the world who likes the
> layout of the CGO web site. It's convenient and doesn't require you
> to click through various sections and sub-sections to get to the
> article you want. The only thing I don't like is the occasional ad
> that you have to click through before you can read an article.
Jeff Lackey
<stre...@lodinet.com> said something kinda like:
>amounts). Kind of took the fun out of it for me. Been playing for fun (and
>for me) ever since. Now when I get a dog of a game I boot it back to the
>store, rather than having to finish the darn thing for a review<bwg>.
>
Heh heh... I hear ya, the toughest thing is having to play a really
crappy game all the way through, just to make sure it is truly as bad
as you think it is. As you know, one of the toughest things about
being a freelancer (I've got a day job and three kids) is how rarely
you have time to just kick back and play a game for the pure fun of
it. I've cut way back on my writing; realized it was taking too much
of my time when I spent very free moment playing and writing.
>BTW: I bought more than a few games, including early Sierra titles (and some
>Hardware) from Brooks Hall in San Francisco at the West Coast Computer Fair
>in Ziploc baggies (and my local Apple shop). Boxes were rare in the early
>days (and all that damn snow you had to walk through to get to the store<g>,
>both ways uphill). You've only got 6 years on me, we're both "old-timers"
>in this game. Ever have a Fairchild cartridge system??? It was years ahead
>of it's time (with some very strange joysticks).
>
>- Stan Trevena
Wow, the memories - the West Coast Computer Fair ( I think they
spelled it "Faire") I've got a complete set of Softalks that I pull
out for nostalgia's sake: one great review of Microsoft's Multiplan
Spreadsheet states "Multiplan is OK, but Microsoft will never be a
Visicorp..." (the guys who made Visicalc.)
Jeff Lackey
Antos Dragon
On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:38:28 +0800, fongyee long <lor...@pc.jaring.my>
wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Nov 1999 13:23:07 -0800, Antos Dragon
><kyle...@NOSPAMmy-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>1994 with "Scorpia's sting" regarding RPG's and Ultima IV. (this was
>
>I love her review. Who is she, really? And where is she now? Is she
>doing any online review? I think she's not with CGW anymore, is she?
>
Remove the part of my email that doesn't belong there, to email me..
We are the Borg...
Lower your shields and surrender your ships...
We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own...
Your culture will adapt to service us...
Resistance is futile...
Jeff Green
>In article
>Here's a few suggestions :
>
>1) Easy-to-tear-out-pages magazine binding
>2) Turning every page would eject a fragrant scent
>3) More "Extreme-series" games reviews. Let's all have more reasons to
>push harder while we do our "core dump"
>4) Less "provocative" cleavage baring girl photos on the cover or
>within the pages. Need to concentrate on kneading the "dough"
>5)More Jeff Green columns. Laughter can induce more bowel motion.
Hmmm. My writing induces better bowel motion?
Query to self: add this line to my resume?
Jeff Green
Computer Gaming World
Quatoria, er, BrotherGrimm, er, Nevermind...
wrote:
Only if you consider joining PC Gamer staff.
Quatoria
--
In the pursuit of knowledge,
every day something is added.
In the practice of Tao,
every day something is dropped.
Less and less do you need to force things,
until finally you arrive at non-action.
When nothing is done,
nothing is left un-done.
-Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching