The Sins of PC Gamer (any response?)
Damien Falgoust
Just a question...The one thing that REALLY bugged me about PC Gamer
was when the reviewer (Trotter, I think) called Ascendency something
like the "best strategy game ever" (or something to that effect) at
around the same time the strategy guide to same came out written by
the same guy. Does "appearance of impropriety" mean anything to these
guys?
Anyway, I know they caught a lot of flack over that (with good
reason) and was wondering if they ever gave an explanation.
I'd also like to hear from them (if they're still listening) as to why
they took such a revisionist stance on Oupost (original review >90%,
latest issue talking about Outpost II talking about how bad the
original was). Don't they stand by their reviews? And if they later
decided the review was erroneous in a material way (and evidently it
was), why not let their readers know -- as in, print a retraction of
some kind. I can forgive a mistake as long as it is owned up to in a
timely manner.
----------------------------------------
Damien Falgoust
University of Texas School of Law -- 1L
dfal...@mail.utexas.edu
http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/3578/
Prowler
dfal...@mail.utexas.edu (Damien Falgoust) wrote:
>Just a question...The one thing that REALLY bugged me about PC Gamer
>was when the reviewer (Trotter, I think) called Ascendency something
>like the "best strategy game ever" (or something to that effect) at
>around the same time the strategy guide to same came out written by
>the same guy. Does "appearance of impropriety" mean anything to these
>guys?
The magazine itself never made any official statements that I have
seen, and even had the audacity to leave the 93% intact almost a year
later in the section listing that years games. The reviewer caught
what no one before and none since (save good old D Smart) in the way
of usenet flames.
He remained silent for a long time but wrote a letter to CGW (which
they published very prominently) a few months back explaining his
position, and his side of the story. While the letter seemed very
heartfelt, and his explanation was certainly plausable, well over a
year later, it doesn't mean much. Not only is it too late for the
thousands who got screwed, but by this time we all have formed our
opinions and the letter looks like last ditch damage control efforts
even if it was 100% sincere.
>Anyway, I know they caught a lot of flack over that (with good
>reason) and was wondering if they ever gave an explanation.
>I'd also like to hear from them (if they're still listening) as to why
>they took such a revisionist stance on Oupost (original review >90%,
>latest issue talking about Outpost II talking about how bad the
>original was). Don't they stand by their reviews? And if they later
>decided the review was erroneous in a material way (and evidently it
>was), why not let their readers know -- as in, print a retraction of
>some kind. I can forgive a mistake as long as it is owned up to in a
>timely manner.
In their defense (very unusual for me to actually defend PC Gamer),
those who gave outpost the high review are most likely no longer with
the magazine (or at least not the same people who called it a fiasco
now), and no matter how lame they may have been (and are) when it
comes to "Dropping the ball"....they would be foolish to not admit at
this point that the original outpost was less than stellar (of course
these are the same people seem to have forgoten about WARBIRDS in
their "Ultimate Online Gaming" issue..where they called Air Warior 2
"The ULTIMATE if only choice for mass multiplayer dogfighting"
Ah well...take PC Gamer for what it is...pretty pictures put together
to hide the fact that the thing is almost 2/3 adds.
mbaldispam@ix*netcom*com <---of course you know I want NO SPAM...so take out the SPAM!
DO NOT SEND JUNK E-MAIL:
"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets
the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is
unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By
Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever
is greater, for each violation."
Nosferatu
nos...@ix.netcom.com (Prowler) wrote:
>Ah well...take PC Gamer for what it is...pretty pictures put together
>to hide the fact that the thing is almost 2/3 adds.
Ya got that right. And that's why I havn't bought an issue for....let
me see now...when was that? Sometime in 1996 anyway. I'm down to the
odd CGW and a sub to Strat+ because the price was right.
--
Nos
http://www.concentric.net/~nosfer/index.html
Warning - All spelling mistakes are to be left as is. No modification
is allowed without the express written permission of Nos Enterprises.
All complaints in regards to the subject herein are to be forwarded to
u...@anal.com.
Dan Bennett
>I'd also like to hear from them (if they're still listening) as to why
>they took such a revisionist stance on Oupost (original review >90%,
>latest issue talking about Outpost II talking about how bad the
>original was).
Hi, Damien,
I've remained silent on this issue for months and months, but it
refuses to go away -- so I'd just like to point out that the Outpost
review ran in our second issue, back in Sept. 1994. That was two and a
half years ago, and not one person who was on the editorial staff of
PC Gamer back then is on the editorial staff today.
(Well, there's one exception -- Joe Novicki, our current disc editor,
had just started as a lowly editorial assistant. Needless to say, he
had about as much to do with the Outpost review as a Naval Academy
cadet has to do with commanding a carrier group. <g>)
If it's a retraction of the review you're looking for, I'm afraid none
of us on the current staff is really in a position to take it back --
it happened a long time ago, and we weren't around when the review
ran, so we're not even qualified to say *why* it ran.
But the recent Sierra feature should make our opinion clear enough;
the original Outpost was a huge disappointment. It shouldn't have
gotten the review it received. We hope Outpost II will be much better,
and we've seen evidence to suggest it will be -- but if it isn't,
we'll be the first to say so.
Dan Bennett
Editor, PC Gamer
paul lacy
Nosferatu (nos...@concentric.net) wrote:
: nos...@ix.netcom.com (Prowler) wrote:
: >Ah well...take PC Gamer for what it is...pretty pictures put together
: >to hide the fact that the thing is almost 2/3 adds.
Gee, how is that different from most of the others mags?
: Ya got that right. And that's why I havn't bought an issue for....let
: me see now...when was that? Sometime in 1996 anyway. I'm down to the
: odd CGW and a sub to Strat+ because the price was right.
: --
Got sucked in by Strat+ too right before they switched their included
disc from the good collection of PC only stuff to the new
PC + GameConsole one. Way less quality material on it. Letting
this one expire ...
P Exon
Dan,
It makes a pleasant change for someone to reply without flaming. Yet
at the same time managing to indicate the childish attitude Damien. I
think the point that Damien is missing is that all reviews are written
by individuals who have different views. not by Magazines.
Regards,
Phil
_______________________________________
exonp*@*rlslinda.agw.bt.co.uk (Work)
phil*@*exonp.demon.co.uk (Home)
The views expressed here are my own. Well
I may not believe the views, but I may have
written them here. In no way should they
be assumed to be the views of any other
party.
Nosferatu
dben...@pcgamer.com (Dan Bennett) wrote:
> We hope Outpost II will be much better,
>and we've seen evidence to suggest it will be -- but if it isn't,
>we'll be the first to say so.
>Dan Bennett
>Editor, PC Gamer
Looks llike Dan's out trying to drum up some more sales. :-)
Nosferatu
exonp*@*rlslinda.agw.bt.co.uk (P Exon) wrote:
>Dan,
>It makes a pleasant change for someone to reply without flaming. Yet
>at the same time managing to indicate the childish attitude Damien. I
>think the point that Damien is missing is that all reviews are written
>by individuals who have different views. not by Magazines.
And all magazines have editors who's job it is to make sure gaffs like
BS reviews are not let out the door.
grundman
Nosferatu wrote:
>
> dben...@pcgamer.com (Dan Bennett) wrote:
>
> > We hope Outpost II will be much better,
> >and we've seen evidence to suggest it will be -- but if it isn't,
> >we'll be the first to say so.
>
> >Dan Bennett
> >Editor, PC Gamer
>
> Looks llike Dan's out trying to drum up some more sales. :-)
>
> --
> Nos
> http://www.concentric.net/~nosfer/index.html
Oh, for GOD'S sake Nos, you are the most opinionated, smug bastard I've
ever heard on usenet, and your EVERYWHERE. I hope that when you die and
go b4 the big man and say, 'Well lord, let me in', he'll say 'Have you
forgiven others like you want to be forgiven now?' and you'll look down
at your feet and say, 'Er, no, whenever somebody made a mistake, I NEVER
forgot it, and they ALL deserve it!!' BOOM, express elevator to the big
lake. :)
By the way, like is spelled 'like', not 'llike', heh heh!!!
Grundman, who DOESN'T use Warbirds, thank you
--
1grun...@earthlink.net (remove the '1's from email address to reply)
'If you choose not to decide,
you still have made a choice'
Rush
Nosferatu
grundman <allsp...@must.die!> wrote:
>Oh, for GOD'S sake Nos, you are the most opinionated, smug bastard I've
>ever heard on usenet, and your EVERYWHERE. I hope that when you die and
>go b4 the big man and say, 'Well lord, let me in', he'll say 'Have you
>forgiven others like you want to be forgiven now?' and you'll look down
>at your feet and say, 'Er, no, whenever somebody made a mistake, I NEVER
>forgot it, and they ALL deserve it!!' BOOM, express elevator to the big
>lake. :)
> By the way, like is spelled 'like', not 'llike', heh heh!!!
>Grundman, who DOESN'T use Warbirds, thank you
Well, I don't need to flame you back Grundman. I'll just post the very
nice apology you emailed me instead.. Apology accepted, love and
kisses to you too.
Nos,
Blah blah blah...blah blah blah.
Blah.....blah...blah.
XXXX00000
Grundman
Belive me whan I say this. You have no need to worry about pissing me
off. Afterall, I'm a smug bastard who does'nt give a f**k what you
think of me. :-)
BTW, It's you're, not your. See how easy it is to pick on peoples
spelling? That's why I have that handy sig.
dearmad
Nosferatu wrote:
>
> exonp*@*rlslinda.agw.bt.co.uk (P Exon) wrote:
>
> >Dan,
>
> >It makes a pleasant change for someone to reply without flaming. Yet
> >at the same time managing to indicate the childish attitude Damien. I
> >think the point that Damien is missing is that all reviews are written
> >by individuals who have different views. not by Magazines.
>
> And all magazines have editors who's job it is to make sure gaffs like
> BS reviews are not let out the door.
> --
True, and all Magazines have Publishers whose job it is to see that
Editors who fail to stop grok from reaching the public are shown TO the
door. Evidently, PC Gamer's Publisher did that quite awhile go. Let go
of it.
--
"Dream it, model it, render it, animate it, damn it..."
La Musique Petite Challenge along with some raytrace stuff are at:
http://www.europa.com/~dearmad
steve b./cg splus
In article <E7nq8...@serval.net.wsu.edu>, you enlightened the world
with this pearl of wisdom...
>Got sucked in by Strat+ too right before they switched their included
>disc from the good collection of PC only stuff to the new
>PC + GameConsole one. Way less quality material on it. Letting
>this one expire ...
We haven't had any console videos on the CD-ROM for over a year.
--
-----------------------------------------
steve bauman/computer games strategy plus
here unofficially in my copious free time
Damien Falgoust
>> >Dan,
>>
>> >It makes a pleasant change for someone to reply without flaming. Yet
>> >at the same time managing to indicate the childish attitude Damien. I
>> >think the point that Damien is missing is that all reviews are written
>> >by individuals who have different views. not by Magazines.
You evidently missed my point, which was not childish in any way. I
wasn't asking for a retraction now -- which, at this late date, would
be too little too late. I was suggesting that, if the editorial staff
of PC Gamer SHORTLY AFTER THE REVIEW HAD RUN felt they had given an
erroneous rating to the game that the responsible thing to do would
have been to print a timely retraction to spare their readers from
purchasing Outpost based on their review.
Your point on different reviewers is misguided. True, different
reviewers do rate the games and the review is their opinion, BUT the
review is also the product of the magazine. Boxes on store shelves
don't say "Trent Ward's Editor's Choice" -- they say "PC Gamer
Editor's Choice." If a magazine such as PC Gamer gives a positive
review to a game, it should stick by that review or admit its error,
in much the same way as I expect a newpaper's editorial staff to stick
by their endorsement of a candidate or retract that endorsement.
I take by your post that the mere suggestion that people take some
responsibility and own up to their mistakes is a reflection of a
"childish attitude." I think quite the opposite is true -- a failure
to take such responsibility is the true sign of a childish attitude.
Aaaaaand speaking of responsibility, Mr. Bennett never responded to
the main question of my post. Namely, has the magazine ever taken an
official position on the Trotter/Ascendancy affair?
I want to know, up front, if PC Gamer has a policy of avoiding the
appearance of impropriety in its reviews. That is not a childish
question. That is a question which dramatically affects the
credibility of the magazine as a source of unbiased reviews. An
answer would be greatly appreciated.
Nosferatu
dearmad <dea...@europa.com> wrote:
>True, and all Magazines have Publishers whose job it is to see that
>Editors who fail to stop grok from reaching the public are shown TO the
>door. Evidently, PC Gamer's Publisher did that quite awhile go. Let go
>of it.
>--
Let go of what? I'm just pointing out something and couldn't care less
if PCG made a booboo or not. I try to avoid paying to read
advertising.
Dan Bennett
On Wed, 26 Mar 1997 18:03:50 -0800, dearmad <dea...@europa.com>
wrote:
>Nosferatu wrote:
>>
>> exonp*@*rlslinda.agw.bt.co.uk (P Exon) wrote:
>>
>> >Dan,
>>
>> >It makes a pleasant change for someone to reply without flaming. Yet
>> >at the same time managing to indicate the childish attitude Damien. I
>> >think the point that Damien is missing is that all reviews are written
>> >by individuals who have different views. not by Magazines.
>>
>> And all magazines have editors who's job it is to make sure gaffs like
>> BS reviews are not let out the door.
>> --
>
>True, and all Magazines have Publishers whose job it is to see that
>Editors who fail to stop grok from reaching the public are shown TO the
>door. Evidently, PC Gamer's Publisher did that quite awhile go. Let go
>of it.
Not sure what you mean by that, Dearmad. Are you referring to the U.S.
PC Gamer? Our first editor-in-chief, Matt Firme, is now our publisher.
His co-editor, Steven Poole, opted to stay in North Carolina when PC
Gamer moved to the San Francisco Bay area. I was made editor when Matt
became publisher, a position I still hold. The magazine was without an
editor-in-chief for nine months, until Gary Whitta came on board last
year. Not one of PC Gamer's editors has been "shown to the door."
For what it's worth, though, I do agree that it's time to let go of
the Outpost review.
Jonathan Normington
Dan Bennett recently wrote:
>>True, and all Magazines have Publishers whose job it is to see that
>>Editors who fail to stop grok from reaching the public are shown TO the
>>door. Evidently, PC Gamer's Publisher did that quite awhile go. Let go
>>of it.
>
>Not sure what you mean by that, Dearmad. Are you referring to the U.S.
>PC Gamer? Our first editor-in-chief, Matt Firme, is now our publisher.
>His co-editor, Steven Poole, opted to stay in North Carolina when PC
>Gamer moved to the San Francisco Bay area. I was made editor when Matt
>became publisher, a position I still hold. The magazine was without an
>editor-in-chief for nine months, until Gary Whitta came on board last
>year. Not one of PC Gamer's editors has been "shown to the door."
Although I noticed that the last PC Gamer UK editor, Jonathan Davies,
has now been reduced to a lowly contributor for some reason (it was
probably explained why somewhere, but if it was, I'll plead blindness).
--
Jonathan Normington
Mark Asher
I have a PSX. I wouldn't mind seeing reviews of some of the PC games that
get translated to that format. For example, how did Wing Commander 3 fare
on the PSX?
Plus Carnage Heart is a PSX game worthy of attention. Most strategy gamers
would be pretty impressed with it, I think.
Man, for $149 the PSX is a good deal. Great sports and racing games you can
play on your 25 inch tv while reclining in an easy chair.
Mark Asher
steve b./cg splus <sp...@together.net> wrote in article
<MPG.da3a8e65...@news.together.net>...
Timothy Burke
As I noted in another thread, Trotter explained his review of Ascendancy
in a letter published in a recent issue of CGW, and I for one found his
explanation convincing. So I think everyone should probably give the guy a
break now.
Dan Bennett
>Although I noticed that the last PC Gamer UK editor, Jonathan Davies,
>has now been reduced to a lowly contributor for some reason (it was
>probably explained why somewhere, but if it was, I'll plead blindness).
I have to say I wouldn't know about that, Jonathan. I don't follow PC
Gamer UK very closely, since the only connection between them and "my"
PCG these days is the name (and the fact that our E-in-C, Gary, writes
a column for the UK mag).
Damien Falgoust
tbu...@cc.swarthmore.edu (Timothy Burke) wrote:
The problem, though isn't with Trotter himself -- it's with PC Gamer
as an organization. Were my criticism directed at the author of the
review, you would be correct -- he published an explanation of his
own.
What has NEVER happened is PC Gamer giving any kind of official
explanation nor (more importantly) any kind of assurance to their
readers that they are concerned about the appearance of impropriety.
That is a question which dramatically affects the credibility of the
magazine as a source of unbiased reviews.
So, I'll ask again: what is PC Gamer's official stance on both the
Trotter incident and the possibility of future occurrences of same?
(BTW, if it sounds like I really hate PC Gamer, I don't -- I think
it's a good publication, but also feel that journalistic integrity
ought to require them to publicly admit their errors, explain why they
happened, and assure their readers that steps will be taken to prevent
them in the future.)
Veteran
>>at your feet and say, 'Er, no, whenever somebody made a mistake, I NEVER
>BTW, It's you're, not your. See how easy it is to pick on peoples
Uh, actually he was correct. You're is only if "you are" is being
substituted for. You wouldn't look down at "you are" feet, but you
WOULD look down at "your" feet. "Your" implies ownership. If you're
(see the difference?) going to correct someone, then please make sure
that you know what you're talking about.
Veteran
Nosferatu
vete...@ix.netcom.com (Veteran) wrote:
>>BTW, It's you're, not your. See how easy it is to pick on peoples
>Uh, actually he was correct. You're is only if "you are" is being
>substituted for. You wouldn't look down at "you are" feet, but you
>WOULD look down at "your" feet. "Your" implies ownership. If you're
>(see the difference?) going to correct someone, then please make sure
>that you know what you're talking about.
>Veteran
Here's the part I was referencing, "and your EVERYWHERE". As in, YOU
ARE everywhere. Stay out of things you don't have a clue about.
I don't need any lessons thx, even if you think otherwise.
Critical Bill
On Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:33:50 GMT, dben...@pcgamer.com (Dan Bennett)
wrote:
>Our first editor-in-chief, Matt Firme, is now our publisher.
Then why can't we hold him responsible for the Outpost review? If he
was the Editor at the time of Ward's review, he should also be held
responsible for allowing it into print.
BTW, a magazine is an entity and should have some sort of honour in
terms of past transgressions. If a newspaper fires a writer for
impropriety or erroneous data, they still issue a retraction of the
article.
But then again, I'm comparing PC Gamer to a real journalistic
publication. Sorry about the confusion.
Critical Bill
I am now going to put ass out on the line and make a bold prediction:
Interstate '76 will be a PC Lamer Editor's Choice.
If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. If I'm right, I'll post the methodology
used to determine this.
BTW, I've never played it, know next to nothing (other than previews)
about it, have not played a beta and know no one who has played a
beta. I simply have a theory that I'm putting to the test.
"If a CD is sent in a paper bag with no return address, then it MUST be the Final Gold Release Version (tm)"
PC Lamer Motto
Critical Bill
>> >It makes a pleasant change for someone to reply without flaming. Yet
>> >at the same time managing to indicate the childish attitude Damien. I
>> >think the point that Damien is missing is that all reviews are written
>> >by individuals who have different views. not by Magazines.
>>
>> And all magazines have editors who's job it is to make sure gaffs like
>> BS reviews are not let out the door.
>
>True, and all Magazines have Publishers whose job it is to see that
>Editors who fail to stop grok from reaching the public are shown TO the
>door.
And the current publisher Matt Firme was the Editor when Trent Ward's
infamous review of Outpost (93%) was published and Dan Bennett was
there for the Ascendancy fiasco (among others).
PC Gamer doesn't "show them the door", they promote them.
Silverlock
On Wed, 02 Apr 1997 16:56:25 GMT, to...@logicfactory.com (Todd
Templeman) wrote:
>On Wed, 02 Apr 1997 02:04:51 GMT, gd...@hotmail.com (Critical Bill)
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:16:54 GMT, dfal...@mail.utexas.edu (Damien
>>Falgoust) wrote:
>>
>>>Aaaaaand speaking of responsibility, Mr. Bennett never responded to
>>>the main question of my post. Namely, has the magazine ever taken an
>>>official position on the Trotter/Ascendancy affair?
>>
>
>I'm breaking into this thread to ask if you guys saw my post entintled
>"Logic Factory re: Ascendancy Strat Guide". It's my attempt to tell
>the story from our point of view at The Logic Factory. If you're
>interested and you can't find it I'll post it again.
>
>-Todd
I'd like to see it that's for sure.
--
Silverlock, UIN 474725
Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system
will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage
to persons or structures from use of this product.
Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.
Silverlock
On Wed, 02 Apr 1997 18:22:49 GMT, gd...@NOSPAMhotmail.com (Homer
Simpson) wrote:
>On Wed, 2 Apr 1997 10:31:50 -0500, sba...@cdmag.com (steve b./cgs+)
>wrote:
>
>>I can't speak for all game magazines, but we don't import games for
>>review. In the case of Realms, Interplay had finished "Americanizing" it
>>(I think they made it a bit easier) and set a release date. It's rare,
>>but it happens. In fact, it happened with multiple Interplay games -
>>ROTH, MAX, Conquest of the New World and Normality were all finished at
>>least a month ahead of their release dates and sent to magazines. Origin
>>had reviewable copies of Longbow about three weeks before it appeared on
>>shelves.
>>
>>This SHOULD be standard in the industry. That's the way it works in the
>>movie and music industry - you don't see a review of a Hollywood flic
>>come out two months after the movie hits the theaters. No, they finish a
>>film months in advance and pre-screen them for critics.
>
>Don't know about that. It doesn't take long for movie/music critics
>to review films or albums. And a pre-screening typically takes place
>within the week before the film's opening. You yourself know how much
>time and effort need to be put into computer game reviews. If game
>companies send out "reviewable" copies long before the games hits
>store shelves, I'd wonder if they were fishing for editor's choice
>ratings and positive commentary to slap on their game boxes, magazine
>ads, or websites to enhance buyer-appeal.
>
So whats wrong with this Homer? Every game developer/publisher wants a
good amrk. if the standard became to send your game in months early
then those that were good would still get the good ratings and those
that weren't wouldn't.
>Given enough time, a company could even decide to take the product
>back to the shop in order to tweak it further.
>
I don't see any problem with this either as long as the game company
tells the magazine this, the magazine agrees to not review it until
the corrections are made, etc. the chance of a magazine agreeing to
devote time to being what in essence is a beta tester for a game would
be zip tho so the developer would have the choice of taking the review
it got or maybe not getting reviewed at all.
>Even if a game were finished ONE month ahead of its release date,
>magazines still need TWO months lead time if I understand your
>industry correctly. A game would have to be finished 2-3 months
>before its release date for a review of it to show up at the same time
>as the game's release. Daily newspapers have, what, a 4-5 hour lead
>time?
Movies have easily a six month lead time why not games? this would
allow for extra beta testing etc. The problem comes in moving from the
current method to the new method because you would have a three month
gap where no games were released and no companies made money on new
releases.
>
>
>
>
>To reply via e-mail, be sure to remove the NOSPAM from the e-mail address.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Visit Game Drek -- your Definitive Guide to Gaming Grossness<tm>.
>http://www.pathcom.com/~kenl/gamedrek.htm
Silverlock
On Thu, 03 Apr 1997 02:48:31 GMT, groundske...@scot.land
(Groundskeeper Willie) wrote:
>>I'm wondering something, does PC Lamer's "King of the Betas" Todd
>>Vaughn really EXIST?
>>
>>This may sound funny, but I've been looking through a few old issues
>>of PC Lamer looking for indisputable "Beta Reviews" and quite a few of
>>them were written by Todd Vaughn. Either this guy is the unluckiest
>>person in the world, or PC Gamer created him as the fall-guy.
>>There are other examples, but that's enough to illustrate the point.
>
>Blah, blah, blah.
>
>Mr. Bill (oh noooo!), why do you keep attacking PCG? Why do you
>constantly drudge up crap that barely anyone cares about? Why are you
>attacking them in another thread about the 'Top 50 Games' feature? Do
>you want to DESTROY PC Gamer? Are you jealous of them? Are you a
>conspiracy theorist? Do you work for a rival magazine? What's going on
>here?
>
Bill is pretty tenacious when he sinks his teeth into something.
>It's a COMPUTER GAME magazine. It's about GAMES. GAMES are supposed to
>be fun. But look at you -- you post article after article about how
>PCG is immoral, unrespectable, and evil -- not to mention meaningless
>research that indicates you have no life (other than criticizing game
>magazines 24/7).
>
He may be accusing pcGamer of impropriety but I haven't seen
immorality or evil. And he isn't accusing them of taking direct
kickbacks just of accomodating the giants in the biz.
Also he has put out some valid points which I have yet to see
adequetely answered. As for the 'its about games theresposed to be
fun' part, an issue which involves my parting with hard earned cash
for any item which might not r=deserve it and which had a 'leaning'
review is not a 'fun' issue, it's a dollar issue.
>What I'm trying to say is -- Bill, lighten up, get a hobby, or go play
>some Internet Quake and vent your frustrations there. IGNORE what
>annoys you, and leave PC Gamer on the shelf.
>
He has a hobby, ie posting interesting flames and questions on the
newsgroup.
>I will do the same thing by ignoring you -- welcome to my FreeAgent
>kill file. You reside right beside Doctor Derek Smart.
Free aagent Kill File??? Oh you mean Ignore.
Critical Bill
I am now going to put ass out on the line and make a bold prediction:
Interstate '76 will be a PC Lamer Editor's Choice.
If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. If I'm right, I'll post the methodology
used to determine this.
BTW, I've never played it, know next to nothing (other than previews)
about it, have not played a beta and know no one who has played a
beta. I simply have a theory that I'm putting to the test.
Sorry if this message shows up twice, my mail service
was interrupted and I tried posting to a public news server.
Critical Bill
>> >It makes a pleasant change for someone to reply without flaming. Yet
>> >at the same time managing to indicate the childish attitude Damien. I
>> >think the point that Damien is missing is that all reviews are written
>> >by individuals who have different views. not by Magazines.
>>
>> And all magazines have editors who's job it is to make sure gaffs like
>> BS reviews are not let out the door.
>
>True, and all Magazines have Publishers whose job it is to see that
>Editors who fail to stop grok from reaching the public are shown TO the
>door.
And the current publisher Matt Firme was the Editor when Trent Ward's
infamous review of Outpost (93%) was published and Dan Bennett was
there for the Ascendancy fiasco (among others).
PC Gamer doesn't "show them the door", they promote them.
Sorry if this message shows up twice, my mail service
Critical Bill
I'm wondering something, does PC Lamer's "King of the Betas" Todd
Vaughn really EXIST?
This may sound funny, but I've been looking through a few old issues
of PC Lamer looking for indisputable "Beta Reviews" and quite a few of
them were written by Todd Vaughn. Either this guy is the unluckiest
person in the world, or PC Gamer created him as the fall-guy.
In the October 1995 issue he did a review of Mortal Kombat 3 (Editor's
Choice) but the actual game wasn't shipped for at least 4 months after
that.
In the June 1996 issue, he reviews a copy of Renegade 2 which never
even ships. PC Gamer admits to reviewing a beta copy. They review
betas all the time, but SSI took them to task this time so they had to
admit it.
In July 1996 he again reviews a game Warhammer: Dark Crusaders that
never sees the light of day.
In the April 1997 issue he reviews a copy of Realms of Haunting that
was just released on the gaming public (a month after the PC Lamer
review).
There are other examples, but that's enough to illustrate the point.
Sorry if this message shows up twice, my mail service
Critical Bill
Sorry if this message shows up twice, my mail service
Kirk Macdonald
Critical Bill wrote:
>
> I am now going to put ass out on the line and make a bold prediction:
In order to "Put your ass on the line" you have to have something to
lose. You've been ranting and raving over the same subject and points
for so long that you've lost your credibility; so you can't gamble that.
I've got no respect for you, so you can't lose that.
Exactly what are you gambling on this "BOLD Prediction"?
You've stated your opinion and whipped it to death; move on.
--
Kirk Macdonald
"Age does not bring wisdom, ...but it does give perspective."
-- Robert Heinlein
These are my own opinions and do not reflect those of The Boeing Co.
athol-brose
In article <334b5e97...@snews.zippo.com>,
Critical Bill <gd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I am now going to put ass out on the line and make a bold prediction:
>If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. If I'm right, I'll post the methodology
>used to determine this.
Gosh, if it was, it couldn't be because the game is a hell of a lot of
fun, could it?
Nah. Must be a conspiracy.
--
athol-brose // cinn...@one.net // http://w3.one.net/~cinnamon
still, it's just noise
steve b./cgs+
In article <334a5e92...@snews.zippo.com>, gd...@hotmail.com says...
> In the April 1997 issue he reviews a copy of Realms of Haunting that
> was just released on the gaming public (a month after the PC Lamer
> review).
It was just released on the US market.
Realms has been out since Christmas in the UK.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
| Steve Bauman | sp...@together.net |
| Managing Editor | sba...@cdmag.com |
| Computer Games Strategy Plus| 2 millet st. |
| www.cdmag.com | richmond, vt 05477 |
--------------------------------------------------------------
Silverlock
On Mon, 07 Apr 1997 02:24:56 GMT, bub...@apk.net (K-Man) wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 04:04:59 GMT, dfal...@mail.utexas.edu (Damien
>Falgoust) wrote:
>
>>
>>>So after all you guys have slammed the hell out of PC Gamer, what do
>>>you recommend as a good source for reviews? Gamespot, Nexus, Computer
>>>Gaming World, CNet? Which ones contain reviews that own up to your
>>>standards?
>>
>>>Just curious, because I find that the reviews in PCG are fine. I
>>>haven't yet purchased a game they've reviewed under 70%. Its true that
>>>the review section is flawed- they do tend to review some games that
>>>aren't out yet, and other games they don't review for 6 months or so.
>>>Its probably also true that publishing companies pay PCG to review
>>>their games soon after they're out, and the ones that don't pay
>>>(unless its a highly-anticipated game) may not find their game
>>>reviewed for quite some time. I'm not positive if it works that way,
>>>but this is business, so it sounds like a common business practice to
SNIP
>>>
>I thought your dissertation on "credibility" sounded a bit too
>legal :) j/k
>
>Anyway, I'm not worried too much if they don't admit to their errors,
>or if the person writing the Ascendancy review also wrote the strategy
>guide...sure there's bias there. But I don't run out and buy a game
>based on whether or not it made the "Editor's Choice" list. I consider
>several other reviews from different sources before I make my
True but not everyonedoes this or has access to net reviews. They do
need to be more careful.
>decision. Because I know its all opinionated in some way or another,
>but if the majority likes the game, then it may be worth a purchase.
>
>But like I said before, I don't think I've ever purchased any game
>that PCG rated less than 70%. In general, that magazine is on the
>mark. I admit there are problems, but those same problems are a part
>of journalism. I've come to expect them. That's why I don't just read
>The New York Times, I read the Daily News as well. Or I don't read
>just one movie review before going out and seeing the movie. That
>wouldn't be sensible, because editors and columnists tend to be
>one-sided, not objective. You're supposed to be objective, but if you
>read carefully, nothing ever is.
>
>The bottom line is, everyone's slamming this magazine just a little
>bit too hard. After all, its a magazine about multimedia
>entertainment, its not the Wall Street Journal. Good grief.
>
its a magazine (for which ppl pay good money) about reviewing products
(for which people pay good maney). See a trend here? Maybe blowing 50$
on a worthless game means nothing to you but for the vast majority of
people if we waste our money because of a belief in a game based on a
review in a magazine then they should at least try to adhere to the
rules or 'respectability' for their medium.
>K-Man
Homer Simpson
On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 12:58:07 GMT, Kirk Macdonald
<hag...@see.sig.for.mail> wrote:
>Critical Bill wrote:
>>
>> I am now going to put ass out on the line and make a bold prediction:
><SNIP>
>
>In order to "Put your ass on the line" you have to have something to
>lose. You've been ranting and raving over the same subject and points
>for so long that you've lost your credibility; so you can't gamble that.
>I've got no respect for you, so you can't lose that.
>
>Exactly what are you gambling on this "BOLD Prediction"?
>
>You've stated your opinion and whipped it to death; move on.
Actually, he's made quite a number of good points. About which of his
statements do you disagree with exactly? Please enumerate.
Critical Bill
>Aaaaaand speaking of responsibility, Mr. Bennett never responded to
>the main question of my post. Namely, has the magazine ever taken an
>official position on the Trotter/Ascendancy affair?
No. They prefer that a competitor: Computer Gaming World, air their
dirty laundry.
>I want to know, up front, if PC Gamer has a policy of avoiding the
>appearance of impropriety in its reviews. That is not a childish
>question. That is a question which dramatically affects the
>credibility of the magazine as a source of unbiased reviews. An
>answer would be greatly appreciated.
I think we'll be waiting for a long time. I presume Dan is busy
getting his monthly allotment of betas and consulting his crystal ball
to predict release dates.
What the hell, if he's wrong, then the suckers will believe him.
Homer Simpson
On Tue, 1 Apr 1997 16:05:05 -0500, sba...@cdmag.com (steve b./cgs+)
wrote:
>In article <334a5e92...@snews.zippo.com>, gd...@hotmail.com says...
>> In the April 1997 issue he reviews a copy of Realms of Haunting that
>> was just released on the gaming public (a month after the PC Lamer
>> review).
>
>It was just released on the US market.
>
>Realms has been out since Christmas in the UK.
That's interesting. I suppose that has to do with the fact that
Realms developer Gremlin is based in the UK. Yet a stateside release
by Interplay wasn't announced till March 3, 1997. Are US gaming
magazines in the habit of importing releases from other countries
before they're officially released over here? Because then all the
information in such reviews would be based on the versions from other
countries, which may differ from the American versions.
steve b./cgs+
In article <33425873...@news.pathcom.com>, gd...@NOSPAMhotmail.com
says...
> That's interesting. I suppose that has to do with the fact that
> Realms developer Gremlin is based in the UK. Yet a stateside release
> by Interplay wasn't announced till March 3, 1997. Are US gaming
> magazines in the habit of importing releases from other countries
> before they're officially released over here? Because then all the
> information in such reviews would be based on the versions from other
> countries, which may differ from the American versions.
I can't speak for all game magazines, but we don't import games for
review. In the case of Realms, Interplay had finished "Americanizing" it
(I think they made it a bit easier) and set a release date. It's rare,
but it happens. In fact, it happened with multiple Interplay games -
ROTH, MAX, Conquest of the New World and Normality were all finished at
least a month ahead of their release dates and sent to magazines. Origin
had reviewable copies of Longbow about three weeks before it appeared on
shelves.
This SHOULD be standard in the industry. That's the way it works in the
movie and music industry - you don't see a review of a Hollywood flic
come out two months after the movie hits the theaters. No, they finish a
film months in advance and pre-screen them for critics.
--
Todd Templeman
>On Thu, 27 Mar 1997 04:16:54 GMT, dfal...@mail.utexas.edu (Damien
>Falgoust) wrote:
>
>>Aaaaaand speaking of responsibility, Mr. Bennett never responded to
>>the main question of my post. Namely, has the magazine ever taken an
>>official position on the Trotter/Ascendancy affair?
>
I'm breaking into this thread to ask if you guys saw my post entintled
Matthew Duncan
In article <334106...@see.sig.for.mail>,
Kirk Macdonald <hag...@see.sig.for.mail> wrote:
>Critical Bill wrote:
>>
>> I am now going to put ass out on the line and make a bold prediction:
><SNIP>
>
>In order to "Put your ass on the line" you have to have something to
>lose. You've been ranting and raving over the same subject and points
>for so long that you've lost your credibility; so you can't gamble that.
>I've got no respect for you, so you can't lose that.
>
Well I read the last 5 or so posts and I think he's right. If you want to
lose respect for someone, make PC Gamer. The mag that reviews games that
don't exist commercially, or that are released months later.
>Exactly what are you gambling on this "BOLD Prediction"?
Evidence to show just how smart he thinks he is. I guess it's an ego
thing ;)
Matt.
>
>You've stated your opinion and whipped it to death; move on.
>
Homer Simpson
On Wed, 2 Apr 1997 10:31:50 -0500, sba...@cdmag.com (steve b./cgs+)
wrote:
>I can't speak for all game magazines, but we don't import games for
>review. In the case of Realms, Interplay had finished "Americanizing" it
>(I think they made it a bit easier) and set a release date. It's rare,
>but it happens. In fact, it happened with multiple Interplay games -
>ROTH, MAX, Conquest of the New World and Normality were all finished at
>least a month ahead of their release dates and sent to magazines. Origin
>had reviewable copies of Longbow about three weeks before it appeared on
>shelves.
>
>This SHOULD be standard in the industry. That's the way it works in the
>movie and music industry - you don't see a review of a Hollywood flic
>come out two months after the movie hits the theaters. No, they finish a
>film months in advance and pre-screen them for critics.
Don't know about that. It doesn't take long for movie/music critics
to review films or albums. And a pre-screening typically takes place
within the week before the film's opening. You yourself know how much
time and effort need to be put into computer game reviews. If game
companies send out "reviewable" copies long before the games hits
store shelves, I'd wonder if they were fishing for editor's choice
ratings and positive commentary to slap on their game boxes, magazine
ads, or websites to enhance buyer-appeal.
Given enough time, a company could even decide to take the product
back to the shop in order to tweak it further.
Even if a game were finished ONE month ahead of its release date,
magazines still need TWO months lead time if I understand your
industry correctly. A game would have to be finished 2-3 months
before its release date for a review of it to show up at the same time
as the game's release. Daily newspapers have, what, a 4-5 hour lead
time?
Groundskeeper Willie
>Interstate '76 will be a PC Lamer Editor's Choice.
>BTW, I've never played it, know next to nothing (other than previews)
>about it, have not played a beta and know no one who has played a
>beta. I simply have a theory that I'm putting to the test.
I have I76, and it's a superb game that deserves high recognition.
Is your theory "PC Gamer gives Editor's Choices to excellent games
like Interstate 76"? If so, it's a pretty good one, but I think we've
already figured that out.
Groundskeeper Willie
>I'm wondering something, does PC Lamer's "King of the Betas" Todd
>Vaughn really EXIST?
>
>This may sound funny, but I've been looking through a few old issues
>of PC Lamer looking for indisputable "Beta Reviews" and quite a few of
>them were written by Todd Vaughn. Either this guy is the unluckiest
>person in the world, or PC Gamer created him as the fall-guy.
Blah, blah, blah.
Mr. Bill (oh noooo!), why do you keep attacking PCG? Why do you
constantly drudge up crap that barely anyone cares about? Why are you
attacking them in another thread about the 'Top 50 Games' feature? Do
you want to DESTROY PC Gamer? Are you jealous of them? Are you a
conspiracy theorist? Do you work for a rival magazine? What's going on
here?
It's a COMPUTER GAME magazine. It's about GAMES. GAMES are supposed to
be fun. But look at you -- you post article after article about how
PCG is immoral, unrespectable, and evil -- not to mention meaningless
research that indicates you have no life (other than criticizing game
magazines 24/7).
What I'm trying to say is -- Bill, lighten up, get a hobby, or go play
some Internet Quake and vent your frustrations there. IGNORE what
annoys you, and leave PC Gamer on the shelf.
I will do the same thing by ignoring you -- welcome to my FreeAgent
steve b./cgs+
In article <33499f5a...@news.pathcom.com>, gd...@NOSPAMhotmail.com
says...
> Don't know about that. It doesn't take long for movie/music critics
> to review films or albums. And a pre-screening typically takes place
> within the week before the film's opening.
Not true. There are the monthlies, like Premiere, Rolling Stone (well,
bi-monthly), etc. that have reviews that are concurrent, or precede, a
movie's release.
> companies send out "reviewable" copies long before the games hits
> store shelves, I'd wonder if they were fishing for editor's choice
> ratings and positive commentary to slap on their game boxes, magazine
> ads, or websites to enhance buyer-appeal.
Absolutely. Why wouldn't they? And what's wrong with that? Just as every
movie has these big quotes on the day it's released (usually from shills
like Joel "I Like Everything" Siegel), every game could have quotes
(assuming they're worthy). Hell, I'd rather have a review, rather than a
preview, quote on the box (we rarely get quoted anymore, though, because
our previews are intentially written quote-free).
> Given enough time, a company could even decide to take the product
> back to the shop in order to tweak it further.
That happens with movies (they re-shoot endings - happened with "The
Saint," bolster love stories, etc.). It could happen with games as well.
This would pose a problem with reviews, but it's really in the companies'
best interest NOT to do this, so they don't end up with reviews that
discuss features that do not exist in the final.
However, the gamer wins if the company decides to tweak it after reading
some reviews.
> Even if a game were finished ONE month ahead of its release date,
> magazines still need TWO months lead time if I understand your
> industry correctly. A game would have to be finished 2-3 months
> before its release date for a review of it to show up at the same time
> as the game's release.
What should really happen is that a game gets completed three or four
months ahead of release. Then the advertising and marketing starts up.
Maybe run a few teasers ahead of schedule (a la the Super Bowl
"Independence Day" commercial in Jan). Get the reviews in, then release
the thing, with a rollout date that everyone just has to know about (run
vague "QUAKE - APRIL 4" types of ads).
However, just like in the movies, you'd only do this with "A" titles -
bad flics, or bad games, don't get pre-screened because they're concerned
that the reviews would have a negative impact on first-week gross (where
a move makes most of its money, just as a game makes most of its sales in
the first few weeks of release).
Of course keep in mind I'm speaking from the perspective of a game
publisher here, not as a magazine editor.
Andrew Ariens
On Sat, 29 Mar 1997 16:14:01 GMT, gd...@front.net (Critical Bill)
wrote:
>I am now going to put ass out on the line and make a bold prediction:
>
>Interstate '76 will be a PC Lamer Editor's Choice.
And it is, so? It's a kick-ass game and it's going to get a lot of
great reviews. What's your point?
--
Andrew R. Ariens (ari...@aiinc.com)
http://www.trailerpark.com/phase1/ariens/index.html
http://www.toptown.com/nowhere/metal1/index.html
Stephen Swann
In article <333e22e5...@news.earthlink.net>,
Silverlock <cro...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:On Thu, 03 Apr 1997 02:48:31 GMT, groundske...@scot.land
:(Groundskeeper Willie) wrote:
:>Mr. Bill (oh noooo!), why do you keep attacking PCG? Why do you
:>constantly drudge up crap that barely anyone cares about? Why are you
:>attacking them in another thread about the 'Top 50 Games' feature? Do
:>you want to DESTROY PC Gamer? Are you jealous of them? Are you a
:>conspiracy theorist? Do you work for a rival magazine? What's going on
:>here?
:Bill is pretty tenacious when he sinks his teeth into something.
I'm convinced that he's almost single-handedly responsible for
Blizzard making cheap "network" Diablo CDs available. He rode that
issue until I was sick of hearing it - practically turned the
newsgroup upside down driving home his one damned point... But then
suddenly, miraculously, Blizzard started offering those network CDs.
I don't believe that it's a coincidence.
--
Stephen Swann * Speak to me in many voices;
sw...@panix.com * make them all sound like one...
FD-Clipper WB-clip * - B.O.C.
Jonathan Aitken
Bill,
its fairly clear that you are correlating advertising dollars/pages in PCG to
ratings outcome, and using this to predict future hits by whats getting a lot of
preview ads right now.
The mistake you are making is the causality you are concluding as proved from
tis - all you have is a correlation, and I'd be interested in it's strength as
well - BC3000 got a fair amount of advertising among others.
ONE alternative explanation could be that companies generally are not going to
spend as much money advertising a game that they think is going to flop.
I'm sure what you're coming up with has something to it - but it's usually a
matter of degree/opinion in my experience than this complete outright conspiracy
with advertisers that you seem to be implying. More likely its how the
writers/editors are personally treated by the companies that has an effect - who
they get to talk to most, who gives the biggest parties, who sends out the most
interesting demo packages, returns their calls, sends them something they can
look at well ahead of release time etc etc.
I think you have a point about the whipping dogs idea (I've noticed it too) -
but it could also be a reflection of change in editors and/or the generally
lower ratings they are giving games as time goes on and sequelitis reaches new
peaks (I agreed with their rating for SP II for instance - it's a great game,
but it was a bit unfinished).
In short - paranoid people often uncover things - but they lose an awful lot of
credibility when they dont know when to stop, and suggest 'malevolence' as the
main cause of why something has happened when they do find it.
J. Aitken
gd...@front.net (Critical Bill) wrote:
>I am now going to put ass out on the line and make a bold prediction:
>
>Interstate '76 will be a PC Lamer Editor's Choice.
>
>If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. If I'm right, I'll post the methodology
>used to determine this.
>
>BTW, I've never played it, know next to nothing (other than previews)
>about it, have not played a beta and know no one who has played a
>beta. I simply have a theory that I'm putting to the test.
>
>
>
K-Man
On Sat, 05 Apr 1997 04:56:05 GMT, gd...@hotmail.com (Critical Bill)
wrote:
>
>BTW, I'm still trying to figure which one of you PC Lamer guyz would
>post under the 'nym of "wholehog". Scott Wolf is still top on the
>list, with TLM and Dan Bennett tied for second.
>
>
>
>-
>"Game Drek gives me all the Gaming Grossness (tm) I can handle" - Critical Bill
>
>http://www.pathcom.com/~kenl/gamedrek.htm
So after all you guys have slammed the hell out of PC Gamer, what do
you recommend as a good source for reviews? Gamespot, Nexus, Computer
Gaming World, CNet? Which ones contain reviews that own up to your
standards?
Just curious, because I find that the reviews in PCG are fine. I
haven't yet purchased a game they've reviewed under 70%. Its true that
the review section is flawed- they do tend to review some games that
aren't out yet, and other games they don't review for 6 months or so.
Its probably also true that publishing companies pay PCG to review
their games soon after they're out, and the ones that don't pay
(unless its a highly-anticipated game) may not find their game
reviewed for quite some time. I'm not positive if it works that way,
but this is business, so it sounds like a common business practice to
me.
Aside from that, I rely on the reviews. They're fine by me. If you
think PCG is a "lame" mag, then don't buy it. Buy Computer Gaming
World, which is riddled with more advertisements than Sports
Illustrated. Or buy PC Game Review, which isn't any bigger than a
pamphlet. Or get your reviews from here. You won't have to worry
about any journalist bias, its free, no ads, everyone's very
opinionated- its reviewing at its best.
Can't wait for the flame....
K-Man
Damien Falgoust
>So after all you guys have slammed the hell out of PC Gamer, what do
>you recommend as a good source for reviews? Gamespot, Nexus, Computer
>Gaming World, CNet? Which ones contain reviews that own up to your
>standards?
>Just curious, because I find that the reviews in PCG are fine. I
>haven't yet purchased a game they've reviewed under 70%. Its true that
>the review section is flawed- they do tend to review some games that
>aren't out yet, and other games they don't review for 6 months or so.
>Its probably also true that publishing companies pay PCG to review
>their games soon after they're out, and the ones that don't pay
>(unless its a highly-anticipated game) may not find their game
>reviewed for quite some time. I'm not positive if it works that way,
>but this is business, so it sounds like a common business practice to
>me.
>Aside from that, I rely on the reviews. They're fine by me. If you
>think PCG is a "lame" mag, then don't buy it. Buy Computer Gaming
>World, which is riddled with more advertisements than Sports
>Illustrated. Or buy PC Game Review, which isn't any bigger than a
>pamphlet. Or get your reviews from here. You won't have to worry
>about any journalist bias, its free, no ads, everyone's very
>opinionated- its reviewing at its best.
The issue is not so much that PC Gamer's reviews are off the mark, but
rather that they don't seem to care much for high standards of
journalism. Even if, theoretically, Ascendancy is the "best game of
its kind," it is a clear conflict of interest to hear those words from
a man who wrote the strategy guide on that very game. Reviewing what
is essentially a beta of a game is improper because of its *potential*
to mislead the reader, even if the review turns out to be dead-on.
And of course by reviewing "lesser" games late, they do their readers
a disservice by not giving them a review in time to prevent him from
wasting his money (not to mention that the review is often skewed
because technology has marched on since the game's release,
potentially making it look worse than it is).
As to it being a "common business practice," well, I doubt that. For
most critics of any medium, credibility is of the utmost importance;
most of the things mentioned above (particularly the Ascendancy thing)
undermine that credibility. And even if it is common, that doesn't
make it a valid practice -- that credibility is still undermined.
Most of the posters here who have been critical of PC Gamer have done
so not because of any vendetta we have against them; it's because we
think what might otherwise be a good magazine is being harmed by an
apparent disregard for even the most basic of journalistic standards.
It is, in other words, a case of the ends not justifying the means.
What disturbs me more than than anything is not the aforementioned
problems' existence, but rather PC Gamers' unwillingness to take
responsibility for their errors.
----------------------------------------
Damien Falgoust
University of Texas School of Law -- 1L
dfal...@mail.utexas.edu
http://www.geocities.com/NapaValley/3578/
K-Man
I thought your dissertation on "credibility" sounded a bit too
legal :) j/k
Anyway, I'm not worried too much if they don't admit to their errors,
or if the person writing the Ascendancy review also wrote the strategy
guide...sure there's bias there. But I don't run out and buy a game
based on whether or not it made the "Editor's Choice" list. I consider
several other reviews from different sources before I make my
decision. Because I know its all opinionated in some way or another,
but if the majority likes the game, then it may be worth a purchase.
But like I said before, I don't think I've ever purchased any game
that PCG rated less than 70%. In general, that magazine is on the
mark. I admit there are problems, but those same problems are a part
of journalism. I've come to expect them. That's why I don't just read
The New York Times, I read the Daily News as well. Or I don't read
just one movie review before going out and seeing the movie. That
wouldn't be sensible, because editors and columnists tend to be
one-sided, not objective. You're supposed to be objective, but if you
read carefully, nothing ever is.
The bottom line is, everyone's slamming this magazine just a little
bit too hard. After all, its a magazine about multimedia
entertainment, its not the Wall Street Journal. Good grief.
K-Man
Damien Falgoust
>I thought your dissertation on "credibility" sounded a bit too
>legal :) j/k
Why thank you. Shows I'm learning... ;-)
>Anyway, I'm not worried too much if they don't admit to their errors,
>or if the person writing the Ascendancy review also wrote the strategy
>guide...sure there's bias there. But I don't run out and buy a game
>based on whether or not it made the "Editor's Choice" list. I consider
>several other reviews from different sources before I make my
>decision. Because I know its all opinionated in some way or another,
>but if the majority likes the game, then it may be worth a purchase.
Yes, but you're a fairly knowledgable buyer...I'd imagine most of the
folks on Usenet are. But when they slap a PC Gamer's Editor's Choice
sticker on a box, it means plenty of less-die-hard gamers are putting
themselves in PC Gamer's hands. The same goes for some of their
bigger issues, typically around Christmas: I'd bet a lot of newsstand
buyers pick it up for advice on what to buy.
Let me put it another way: there is a reason that a "Good Housekeeping
Seal of Approval" or thumbs-up from Consumer Reports MEANS
something...It's because they go the extra distance to insure
objectivity in their reviews. Their readers know if the review
happens to be an accurate measure of quality, it's because the
reviewer objectively thought so and not because he has a financial
interest in the thing reviewed.
>But like I said before, I don't think I've ever purchased any game
>that PCG rated less than 70%. In general, that magazine is on the
>mark. I admit there are problems, but those same problems are a part
>of journalism. I've come to expect them. That's why I don't just read
>The New York Times, I read the Daily News as well. Or I don't read
>just one movie review before going out and seeing the movie. That
>wouldn't be sensible, because editors and columnists tend to be
>one-sided, not objective. You're supposed to be objective, but if you
>read carefully, nothing ever is.
You're correct in that no review is ever totally unbiased: it always
reflects the particular likes and dislikes of the reviewer. And
that's OK, because everyone pretty much understands that Gene Siskel
is not going to like the same things as they do.
The problem is when it becomes more than just likes and dislikes. How
confident would you feel in a Gene Siskel or Roger Ebert (or *insert
your newspaper's critic here*) if you found out they had a financial
stake in the film reviewed (say, for instance, Siskel wrote the
screenplay)? Even if Siskel is the consummate professional and can
still be objective in his review, he owes a duty to his readers to not
put himself in a situation where his credibility might appear to be
undermined.
>The bottom line is, everyone's slamming this magazine just a little
>bit too hard. After all, its a magazine about multimedia
>entertainment, its not the Wall Street Journal. Good grief.
Yeah, and that industry does over $1 billion a year, I think (someone
correct me if I'm wrong). And if you get right down to it, Good
Housekeeping is just about cooking and cleaning, right?
PC Gamer charges its readers. It is a publication put out for profit.
It therefore ought to be held to the same standards of both
professionalism and journalistic integrity as any such print
publication.
Groundskeeper Willie
On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 10:12:10 GMT, cro...@earthlink.net (Silverlock)
wrote:
>Bill is pretty tenacious when he sinks his teeth into something.
Gee-zooey, tell me about it... he's got a helluva grip!
>He has a hobby, ie posting interesting flames and questions on the
>newsgroup.
*I* think that this is a scary hobby.
>Free aagent Kill File??? Oh you mean Ignore.
Yep, and I forgot to impliment it -- so I was subjected to a whole
bunch more of wacky, paranoid Critical Bill messages the next time I
popped back on. D'oh! Actually, I think I'll keep reading his stuff
for the raw entertainment value. Bill's truly THE MAN when it comes to
slinging around lofty accusations, attacking magazine editors, and
creating chunky amounts of higgeldy-piggeldy on this newsgroup. Good
stuff indeed. Sure makes ME glad knowing that he's probably on the
other side of the country, and I'm safe.
Ach-aye!
Groundskeeper Wilie
Clone them sheep!
Peteroo
>Even if, theoretically, Ascendancy is the "best game of
>its kind," it is a clear conflict of interest to hear those words from
>a man who wrote the strategy guide on that very game.
No. It gives the _apperance_ of a conflict of interest, and, to be sure,
that's not a good thing. As all these PC Gamer threads suggest,
appearances do count for a great deal.
However, without knowing the particulars of the publusher/author
arrangement, it's worth noting that there may have been be no _real_
conflict; if the book was written for a flat fee -- i.e. the author
received no royalties -- then he had nothing to gain by a flattering
review.
Peter
Damien Falgoust
pet...@aol.com (Peteroo) wrote:
Actually, he does -- even if he doesn't profit from sale of the actual
book, he severly decreases his chances of being asked to write another
strategy guide (by the same or even a different game company) in the
future.
I would posit that the appearance is equally as important as the fact
of conflict, since both critically undermine the reviewer's
credibility with his readers.
Adam Littman
In article <3348555e...@news.earthlink.net>, bub...@apk.net (K-Man) wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 04:04:59 GMT, dfal...@mail.utexas.edu (Damien
>Falgoust) wrote:
>>As to it being a "common business practice," well, I doubt that. For
>>most critics of any medium, credibility is of the utmost importance;
>>most of the things mentioned above (particularly the Ascendancy thing)
>>undermine that credibility. And even if it is common, that doesn't
>>make it a valid practice -- that credibility is still undermined.
I believe that was the motive for murder in a Columbo episode. A food critic
was going to be exposed as a blackmailer by a chef and his credibility was
going to be destroyed.
___________
Adam Littman / ^ \
AL...@cornell.edu /\ / \ /\
/__\__/___\__/__\
/ \( ) ( )/ \
\ /\ o /\ /
\ / \( )/ \ /
"Four minutes twenty-two seconds, \/____\_/____\/
Baldric, you owe me a groat" \ \ /
--Blackadder \ / \ /
---------
K-Man
On Tue, 08 Apr 1997 00:22:19 GMT, al...@cornell.edu (Adam Littman)
wrote:
>In article <3348555e...@news.earthlink.net>, bub...@apk.net (K-Man) wrote:
>>On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 04:04:59 GMT, dfal...@mail.utexas.edu (Damien
>>Falgoust) wrote:
>>>As to it being a "common business practice," well, I doubt that. For
>>>most critics of any medium, credibility is of the utmost importance;
>>>most of the things mentioned above (particularly the Ascendancy thing)
>>>undermine that credibility. And even if it is common, that doesn't
>>>make it a valid practice -- that credibility is still undermined.
>
>I believe that was the motive for murder in a Columbo episode. A food critic
>was going to be exposed as a blackmailer by a chef and his credibility was
>going to be destroyed.
Now that was funny....two serious posts going back and forth, and then
someone comes in and adds a little humor.... I don't think I've
laughed like that for a long time..that Columbo bit took me by
surprise!!
I think that there have been some very valid points made here that I
obviously haven't considered. I personally don't pay too much
attention to any one single review or article.....but that's because I
have access to several different media, both at home and at work, and
as such I can get a variety in my news and entertainment rather
easily. But for the average consumer (and moreso for first-time
buyers, or people who just bought their first personal computer, and
who want to play the latest games) , the only thing they may have to
help them out is the 300+pg Christmas issue of PCG. And if those
reviews are lacking in journalistic integrity, then that consumer will
most likely be out of luck with his/her next purchase. I didn't
consider that before.
So back to my first question (modified a bit)....which magazine would
you recommend to the average consumer, and why?
K-Man
Groundskeeper Willie
>>Is your theory "PC Gamer gives Editor's Choices to excellent games
>>like Interstate 76"?
>
Critical Bill, you are my sunshine!
Damien Falgoust
al...@cornell.edu (Adam Littman) wrote:
>In article <3348555e...@news.earthlink.net>, bub...@apk.net (K-Man) wrote:
>>On Sun, 06 Apr 1997 04:04:59 GMT, dfal...@mail.utexas.edu (Damien
>>Falgoust) wrote:
>>>As to it being a "common business practice," well, I doubt that. For
>>>most critics of any medium, credibility is of the utmost importance;
>>>most of the things mentioned above (particularly the Ascendancy thing)
>>>undermine that credibility. And even if it is common, that doesn't
>>>make it a valid practice -- that credibility is still undermined.
>I believe that was the motive for murder in a Columbo episode. A food critic
>was going to be exposed as a blackmailer by a chef and his credibility was
>going to be destroyed.
D'ya think Peter Falk could do some poking around PC Gamer? Maybe
then we'd get an official explanation... ;-)
Patrick C Miller
You know, Bill, you've made a few good points in this discussion, but
the more of your posts I read, the more I'm convinced that you simply
don't know what you're talking about. Most of what you write is based on
faulty assumptions, groundless conjecture and commonly held
misconceptions. Mix in your fondness for conspiracy theories and what
your posts amount to is the very dreck you claim to deplore. Your post
below is a good example.
Critical Bill (gd...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: I don't really like to take ANY review at face value. Gamespot isn't
: too bad and their reviews seem somewhat based in reality.
What makes Gamespot's reviews so much better than any others? I've read
them. Some of them are good, some are okay and some aren't so good.
Personally, they're far too short on specifics for my taste. I find it
interesting that someone who skewers CGW for not devoting enough space to
articles and reviews and too much "eye candy" recommends reviews at a Web
site high on graphics and short on content.
: I also tend to believe certain writers over others. Scorpia, for
: instance, has IMHO one of the higher levels of credibility in the biz;
: she even withstood CGW/Ziff-Davis pressure to allow ratings in her
: reviews. If she recommended a RPG, I'd probably believe her,
: especially since her review is usually followed by a hint section,
: thus showing she at least finished the game.
As has been stated numerous times on this newsgroup, the ratings in CGW
were instituted as a result of reader requests. I could be wrong, but as I
recall, they were started before ZD bought CGW. And how does providing
hints in a review provide any proof whatsoever that a reviewer finished
the game? It means nothing. All the reviews published at CNET's
Gamecenter contain tips. Is that a guarantee that all the reviewers
finished the games?
: You're onto something here. Take a close look at the "Editor's
: Choices" and then check out where and how often they advertise;
: especially in the months preceeding their "Editor's Choice"
: appearance. They "pay" through increased advertising (gatefold
: inside-cover) in prime areas.
: BTW, you're right about the "pay per use" theory. Many mags accept
: payment for covers and feature articles, much the same way they do for
: overt advertising. Take a close look at the November Red Alert cover;
: PC Lamer has never had a cover on a currently available game (always
: previews/trends). Want to bet that Westwood spent some heavy coin on
: that one?
And the proof you can provide for this serious charge is...???
: >Aside from that, I rely on the reviews. They're fine by me. If you
: >think PCG is a "lame" mag, then don't buy it. Buy Computer Gaming
: >World, which is riddled with more advertisements than Sports
: >Illustrated.
: I buy 'em both for sheer entertainment value. I read them because I
: like the hobby and like reading about the hobby. Then again, to
: actually buy games based on their reviewers opinions is insane. Jump
: on Usenet and post a question on the game; you'll get more replies
: from people who paid $50 for the game and aren't being compensated for
: the review.
Oh certainly, Bill, someone who has decided to purchase a game with his
own hard-earned cash is *far* more objective about it than someone who
has no financial investment in the game. Give me a break.
: >Or get your reviews from here. You won't have to worry
: >about any journalist bias, its free, no ads, everyone's very
: >opinionated- its reviewing at its best.
: Agreed.
First, reviewers are *supposed* to express their opinions. Their
opinions are at least as valid as any posted to this newsgroup. I do
agree that this is a good place to get a wide variety of opinions on
games. There are some people who post regularly here whose opinions I
have come to trust and value. I have read some very good, thoughtful
reviews on this newsgroup.
However, there is a huge difference between posting an anonymous opinion
on a newsgroup and writing a review for a national magazine. My name is
on what I write. I know that thousands of people will read my reviews
and use them as a basis for making a buying decision. If I am to
maintain credibility among CGW's readers, I have to be accountable to
them. Furthermore, because I am being paid for my work, I have to meet
the standards and expectations of the editors. If I don't, I won't be
writing reviews for long.
You and others on this newsgroup labor under the misconception that
advertising dollars determine editorial content. While I am not naive
enough to believe that advertisers have no influence on editorial
content, any magazine that allows its editorial content to be controlled
by advertising dollars will not be in existence for long. Why? Because
it will lose credibility with its readers.
A magazine's readers are its most precious commodity. The numbers and
types of people who read a publication are what attracts advertisers.
Any magazine that consistently prints glowing reviews of games based on
how much a game publisher advertises will lose readers in droves. Once
those readers are gone, so are the advertisers. Any magazine that tries
to "win" in the short term by pleasing advertisers will lose in the long
run.
-----------------------------------
Patrick C. Miller
Freelance Writer
Computer Gaming World
& CNET Gamecenter
-----------------------------------
Brian Ekberg
Patrick, I thought for the most part your comments and critique of Critical
Bill's accusations were accurate. However, I do have a beef with one of
your points. See below for more...
Patrick C Miller <pami...@plains.nodak.edu> wrote in article
<5j07bm$90h$1...@daily-planet.nodak.edu>...
>
> : I buy 'em both for sheer entertainment value. I read them because I
> : like the hobby and like reading about the hobby. Then again, to
> : actually buy games based on their reviewers opinions is insane. Jump
> : on Usenet and post a question on the game; you'll get more replies
> : from people who paid $50 for the game and aren't being compensated for
> : the review.
>
> Oh certainly, Bill, someone who has decided to purchase a game with his
> own hard-earned cash is *far* more objective about it than someone who
> has no financial investment in the game. Give me a break.
>
I think this is possible, if not probable, Pat. If I buy a game for $50 I'm
damn well going to play it as throughouly as I can. I will have a good
understanding of the game and will hopefully have a good feel for the game.
Furthermore, if a person asks a question on Usenet, I'm going to give them
my honest opinion on the game. If it is great, I'll let them know. If it
sucks, I'll recommend not buying, just to save them from the same mistake I
made.
In this way, we all are (or can be) reviewers. As for the motiviation
behind our reviews, well, that's a different story altogether. It's FAR
more possible for a reviewer to have some sort of financial incentive to
write a positive, glowing review, than some local yokel who's pissed off
and wants to vent on Usenet. Do I think reviewers write "green" reviews on
a widespread basis? No. Is the temptation there? Definitely. Just as Bill
Trotter.
Anyway, I appreciate your comments.
Brian Ekberg
Patrick C Miller
8f00$14e0...@m10.jaye.com>:
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network (NDHECN)
Distribution:
Brian Ekberg (brian....@jaye.com) wrote:
: Patrick, I thought for the most part your comments and critique of Critical
: Bill's accusations were accurate. However, I do have a beef with one of
: your points. See below for more...
: Patrick C Miller <pami...@plains.nodak.edu> wrote in article
: <5j07bm$90h$1...@daily-planet.nodak.edu>...
: >
: > : I buy 'em both for sheer entertainment value. I read them because I
: > : like the hobby and like reading about the hobby. Then again, to
: > : actually buy games based on their reviewers opinions is insane. Jump
: > : on Usenet and post a question on the game; you'll get more replies
: > : from people who paid $50 for the game and aren't being compensated for
: > : the review.
: >
: > Oh certainly, Bill, someone who has decided to purchase a game with his
: > own hard-earned cash is *far* more objective about it than someone who
: > has no financial investment in the game. Give me a break.
: >
: I think this is possible, if not probable, Pat. If I buy a game for $50 I'm
: damn well going to play it as throughouly as I can. I will have a good
: understanding of the game and will hopefully have a good feel for the game.
: Furthermore, if a person asks a question on Usenet, I'm going to give them
: my honest opinion on the game. If it is great, I'll let them know. If it
: sucks, I'll recommend not buying, just to save them from the same mistake I
: made.
Point well taken. As I said, there are gamers out there who buy games
and post good, solid reviews on the newsgroups. I have great respect for
people who take the time to do that. But how many thoughtful,
intelligent posts do you see compared to the "this game sux" or "this
game rulz" variety? And if you bought a game that, after playing it for
a few days, you didn't really like, would you continue to play it
thoroughly and explore all its features? Perhaps you would, but most
gamers wouldn't.
I'll use a real-life example of what I'm talking about. When Across
the Rhine was released, this newsgroup and the gaming forums on
CompuServe were filled with posts slamming the game. Most of those posts
were from people who found the game unplayable from the first-person
perspective and either returned it or quit playing it altogether. In
fact, there was a lengthy thread on CompuServe devoted to determining who
had returned the game the fastest.
Despite the unplayable first-person aspect, there was a playable game in
the box, even if it wasn't the one most people expected. It would have
been easy for me to declare the ATR DOA simply because the sim part
didn't work. But as a professional reviewer for a national magazine, I
couldn't do that. I had to learn how to play the complete game and write a
review about ATR. It wasn't a particularly enjoyable experience, but to
do anything less would have been unfair to CGW's readers.
I'm not trying to be smug, self-righteous or imply that a professional
reviewer will always do a better job than an amateur reviewer. I am
simply trying to illustrate that there are pressures on a professional
reviewer and standards of accountability that don't exist for the average
Usenet poster. When I put on my reviewer's hat, my attitude and approach
to a game has to change. I'd like to have a neon sign in front of my
computer that reminds me: "It's the reader, stupid!" :-)
: In this way, we all are (or can be) reviewers. As for the motiviation
: behind our reviews, well, that's a different story altogether. It's FAR
: more possible for a reviewer to have some sort of financial incentive to
: write a positive, glowing review, than some local yokel who's pissed off
: and wants to vent on Usenet. Do I think reviewers write "green" reviews on
: a widespread basis? No. Is the temptation there? Definitely. Just as Bill
: Trotter.
Please don't think I'm saying that no one except professional reviewers
can render opinions on games because I don't believe that for a minute. As
I have said all along, the more opinions you can get about a game before
buying it, the better. It's the best way to make an informed purchase.
I have never considered the opinions expressed in my reviews to be the
last word on a game and I have never seen any professional reviewer who
frequents this newsgroup express anything of the sort.
What I object to is the idea that people who pay for their games can
somehow render a "pure" opinion while those who receive games for free
and get paid for their work are considered "tainted." That's simply
untrue. If you don't believe me, take a look at the hardware and
software newsgroups that are littered with posts from people fanatically
defending their purchases and flaming those who bought something
different. That's not to say that it's impossible for people to be
objective about their purchases, only that there's plenty of evidence to
suggest that they usually aren't.
Beyond that, I'm not sure what financial incentive I have for writing a
positive review of a bad game. CGW and CNET pay me the same, regardless
of whether my reviews are positive, negative or somewhere in between.
Could a game publisher attempt to bribe me to write a glowing review of a
lousy game? I suppose so, although it's never happened. I do know that
if I wrote more than one such review for CGW or CNET, I'd be out on my
ear and my credibility and reputation as a reviewer would be ruined. In
the long run, there's little to gain and much to lose. I think Bill
Trotter expressed that very eloquently in his letter to CGW.
steve b./cgs+
In article <33667191...@snews.zippo.com>, gd...@hotmail.com says...
> BTW, you're right about the "pay per use" theory. Many mags accept
> payment for covers and feature articles, much the same way they do for
> overt advertising. Take a close look at the November Red Alert cover;
> PC Lamer has never had a cover on a currently available game (always
> previews/trends). Want to bet that Westwood spent some heavy coin on
> that one?
What do you base this on? How long have you worked in the magazine
industry? I'm not here to defend PC Gamer, but to say "many mags accept
payment" is curious, since you seem to know so much about it. I'd love to
see your proof.
Here's how we select a cover, and I presume it's the same for other mags
as well. We decide on a game we want and contact the company, or the
company pitches it to us. We decide whether or not that title will sell
copies of the magazine on the newsstand.
With Red Alert, Westwood wouldn't need to pay PC Gamer for the cover -
I'm sure PC Gamer wanted it. Every magazine wanted it (we did it for our
April cover of that year, and it sold like crazy).
Just for the record, we've never received payment for a cover or a
preview. If someone paid us money for a preview, it would say right on it
"PAID ADVERTISEMENT," much as the MMX "feature" in the current CGW is an
ad (not Loyd Case's article, the one in the back of the magazine).
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
| Steve Bauman - Managing Editor - Computer Games Strategy Plus |
| www.cdmag.com - 2 millet st. - richmond, vt 05477 - 802.434.3060 |
| sba...@cdmag.com - sp...@together.net - s_ba...@compuserve.com |
------------------------------------------------------------------
Phaedrus
[assorted snippages]
In article <01bc49d2$61a38f00$14e0...@m10.jaye.com>,
Brian Ekberg <brian....@jaye.com> wrote:
>Patrick C Miller <pami...@plains.nodak.edu> wrote in article
><5j07bm$90h$1...@daily-planet.nodak.edu>...
>> own hard-earned cash is *far* more objective about it than someone who
>> has no financial investment in the game. Give me a break.
>I think this is possible, if not probable, Pat. If I buy a game for $50 I'm
>damn well going to play it as throughouly as I can. I will have a good
>understanding of the game and will hopefully have a good feel for the game.
>Furthermore, if a person asks a question on Usenet, I'm going to give them
>my honest opinion on the game. If it is great, I'll let them know. If it
>sucks, I'll recommend not buying, just to save them from the same mistake I
>made.
I'm sure that's the way you would react. But, sad to say, that's not
the typical reaction.
When people have just made a decision--particularly a decision that
involves sacrifice, like buying something--there's a mental tendency to want
to justify that decision. The strength of that mental tendency varies widely
from person to person. Most people enjoy saying "I just bought X and it's
great!" Relatively few people enjoy saying, or even thinking to themselves,
"I just bought X--boy, was that a waste of money or what?" So, when people
consider decisions they've already made, they tend to overvalue the positives
of what they decided, and undervalue the negatives.
There have been studies done on this; one that comes to mind was done
at a racetrack. When people were waiting in line to place their bets, they
tended to be anxious and unsure about what they were about to do. After they
had placed the bet, they tended to be much more confident about the decision
they had just made--even to the point of wanting to double the bet before the
race started. People like to be right.
There's plenty of evidence for this on Usenet too--the perpetual "my
system is better than your system" in rec.games.video, "my computer is better
than your computer" in comp.sys.whatever, "my car is better than your car"
in rec.autos.whatever, etc., etc. People are simply more likely to defend
something they own than something they don't.
So yes, I do feel that a reviewer who received a review copy of the game
is in a better position to be objective than someone who bought the game.
--
\o\ If you're interested in books/stories with transformation themes, \o\
/o/ try <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/phaedrus/translist/translist.html>. /o/
\o\ New list entries always appreciated. FC1.21:FC(W/C)p6arw A- C->++ D>++ \o\
/o/ H+ M>+ P R T++++ W** Z+ Sm RLCT a cmn++++$ d e++ f+++ h- i++wf p-- sm# /o/
GEORGE ARUGAY MONTEMAYOR
Patrick C Miller (pami...@plains.nodak.edu) wrote:
: : I also tend to believe certain writers over others. Scorpia, for
: : instance, has IMHO one of the higher levels of credibility in the biz;
: : she even withstood CGW/Ziff-Davis pressure to allow ratings in her
: : reviews. If she recommended a RPG, I'd probably believe her,
: : especially since her review is usually followed by a hint section,
: : thus showing she at least finished the game.
: As has been stated numerous times on this newsgroup, the ratings in CGW
: were instituted as a result of reader requests. I could be wrong, but as I
: recall, they were started before ZD bought CGW. And how does providing
I don't think you understood the person's post with Scorpia and the
ratings. I haven't seen the latest issue of CGW, but I do believe Scorpia
does not use ratings in her reviews, even after going through pressure
from the mags and possibly reader request, demanding ratings in her game
reviews.
: hints in a review provide any proof whatsoever that a reviewer finished
: the game? It means nothing. All the reviews published at CNET's
: Gamecenter contain tips. Is that a guarantee that all the reviewers
: finished the games?
You are correct here that it does not guarantee that the reviewer finished
the game, but if the tips are original in that they've never been printed
elsewhere online or on the pages of a magazine, then doesn't that say
anything about how much the reviewer went through in examining the game?
I'm pretty sure you don't get much of a tip from reviewers who don't spend
a lot of time on a game.
-George Montemayor
gmo...@sfsu.edu
Patrick C Miller
: On 15 Apr 1997 22:23:41 GMT, pami...@plains.nodak.edu (Patrick C
: Miller) wrote:
: > Please don't think I'm saying that no one except professional reviewers
: >can render opinions on games because I don't believe that for a minute.
Critical Bill (gd...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: I've always wondered about this, and I've got to ask. What exact
: qualifications do you "professional reviewers" have?
Professional reviewers don't have to have any qualifications beyond
having someone agree to pay them to write a review.
: If I go to a doctor, I know he has been certified by a medical board
: to do medical work. The same goes for a dentist. When I drive over a
: bridge, I don't worry if the guy who designed it was a brother of the
: contracter because regulations require a certified engineer. When I
: get my taxes done by a certified accountant, I don't worry about
: getting a call from Revenue Canada.
Can you die or go to jail because you read a bad review? Well, okay,
judging from how seriously you take this stuff, maybe *YOU* could, but I
seriously doubt that the vast majority of computer gamers who read my
reviews are endangered by them. In other words, there are good reasons
why different professions have different standards and requirements.
This ain't exactly brain surgery ya know.
: What qualifications do you require to be a reviewer? A journalism
: degree would be a given, but that would generally qualify you for just
: about anything but nothing in particular. I've looked long and hard
: and haven't found anything like "Bachelor of Computer Gaming Review"
: designation in any accredited university of college.
Golly, most people aren't so interested, but since you asked, I'll tell
you that I have a journalism degree, experience in the news media, 25
years of experience in war gaming, I'm a military history buff and I've
been playing computer games since I bought my first computer--a Kaypro
II--14 years ago.
Of course, none of that would mean a damn thing if a former CGW
editor named Chris Lombardi hadn't decided to take a chance on me.
You'll have to ask him why he took the risk. I know that he didn't hire
me for my dashing good looks. T. Liam McDonald tends to get those jobs.
: For all I know, you could be the brother of the best friend of the
: publisher or a friend of a friend of a friend. Come on, let us in on
: the secret school you lamers graduate from and gain your incredible
: "professional PC game reviewer" status.
I am a professional reviewer because I get paid to write reviews. It's
that simple, similar to the way athletes are deemed professionals when
they're paid money to play a game. Now someone might think he's the
greatest reviewer in the world, have a degree from the Martin Cirulis
Charm School and Reviewer's College and have reviews up the wazoo
published on various Web sites, but unless he's been paid to write these
reviews, he's only an amateur. In other words, you have to prove to some
editor at a publication or Web site that your writing and opinions are
worth paying for.
: > Beyond that, I'm not sure what financial incentive I have for writing a
: >positive review of a bad game. CGW and CNET pay me the same, regardless
: >of whether my reviews are positive, negative or somewhere in between.
: You are freelance and must have experienced some lulls in your work.
: Imagine a game magazine that culls the bad reviews from the bad and
: simply does not supply work to certain reviewers.
: No bag of money is going to appear at your door, you just won't get
: work if you piss off some of the big boys in the biz.
: Oh, let me guess, you're going to deny this has EVER happened in the
: business. Go on, I can use the laugh.
Once again, Bill, you demonstrate your ignorance of the subject, as
well as your penchant for conspiracies. I do freelance writing, but I
don't make my living from freelancing. As far as I know, few
professional game reviewers do. I could stop writing reviews today and it
would make little difference in my standard of living.
And just for the record, I have pissed off some big boys in the game
publishing business. I have the letters and E-mail to prove it. Hell, I've
even pissed off Johnny Wilson. But guess what? I'm still writing
reviews and getting more offers for work than ever. It's gotten to the
point where I have to turn editors down. What does that tell you about your
conspiracy theory?
Patrick C Miller
ws.csus.edu>
Organization: North Dakota Higher Education Computing Network (NDHECN)
Distribution:
GEORGE ARUGAY MONTEMAYOR (gmontem@taurus) wrote:
: Patrick C Miller (pami...@plains.nodak.edu) wrote:
: : : I also tend to believe certain writers over others. Scorpia, for
: : : instance, has IMHO one of the higher levels of credibility in the biz;
: : : she even withstood CGW/Ziff-Davis pressure to allow ratings in her
: : : reviews. If she recommended a RPG, I'd probably believe her,
: : : especially since her review is usually followed by a hint section,
: : : thus showing she at least finished the game.
: : As has been stated numerous times on this newsgroup, the ratings in CGW
: : were instituted as a result of reader requests. I could be wrong,
: : but as I recall, they were started before ZD bought CGW. And how
: : does providing
: I don't think you understood the person's post with Scorpia and the
: ratings. I haven't seen the latest issue of CGW, but I do believe Scorpia
: does not use ratings in her reviews, even after going through pressure
: from the mags and possibly reader request, demanding ratings in her game
: reviews.
I understood what he was saying about Scorpia. I was responding to the
fact that he seems to think the ratings were ordered by some ZD suit.
They weren't. Mr. Bill also needs to understand that not all of CGW's
reviewers feel as strongly about the ratings issue as Scorpia does. As a
reviewer, I don't particularly like star ratings, but if most readers
demand them, so be it.
: : hints in a review provide any proof whatsoever that a reviewer finished
: : the game? It means nothing. All the reviews published at CNET's
: : Gamecenter contain tips. Is that a guarantee that all the reviewers
: : finished the games?
: You are correct here that it does not guarantee that the reviewer finished
: the game, but if the tips are original in that they've never been printed
: elsewhere online or on the pages of a magazine, then doesn't that say
: anything about how much the reviewer went through in examining the game?
: I'm pretty sure you don't get much of a tip from reviewers who don't spend
: a lot of time on a game.
You're certainly right that the more time a reviewer spends with a game,
the better the hints and tips he or she will be able to provide. But how do
you know that any hint or tip you read in CGW or anywhere else has never
been published before? You don't.
Homer Simpson
On Tue, 15 Apr 1997 12:31:24 -0400, sba...@cdmag.com (steve b./cgs+)
wrote:
>In article <33667191...@snews.zippo.com>, gd...@hotmail.com says...
>> BTW, you're right about the "pay per use" theory. Many mags accept
>> payment for covers and feature articles, much the same way they do for
>> overt advertising. Take a close look at the November Red Alert cover;
>> PC Lamer has never had a cover on a currently available game (always
>> previews/trends). Want to bet that Westwood spent some heavy coin on
>> that one?
>
>What do you base this on? How long have you worked in the magazine
>industry? I'm not here to defend PC Gamer, but to say "many mags accept
>payment" is curious, since you seem to know so much about it. I'd love to
>see your proof.
>
>Here's how we select a cover, and I presume it's the same for other mags
>as well. We decide on a game we want and contact the company, or the
>company pitches it to us. We decide whether or not that title will sell
>copies of the magazine on the newsstand.
>
>With Red Alert, Westwood wouldn't need to pay PC Gamer for the cover -
>I'm sure PC Gamer wanted it. Every magazine wanted it (we did it for our
>April cover of that year, and it sold like crazy).
I can't speak for CB (though Denny Atkin may think I do :>) but while
I certainly don't have any "hard" evidence--I'll leave that for you
investigative journalists in the industry--the December 96 PC Gamer
Red Alert cover is certainly a curious anomaly.
I do remember Strategy Plus's Red Alert cover in April 96--in fact I
have it here. But let me ask you this, since you're the gaming mag
industry guy. How many times has your own publication devoted an
entire cover to a game that was not being PREVIEWED in a MAJOR FEATURE
in that issue? I only have about 16 or so issues of S+ and in those,
the answer is ZERO.
How many times has CGW done that? Since 1990 when I first started to
read it -- ZERO.
How many times prior to Dec. 96 has PC Gamer done that for a cover?
Since it came into being in 1994 -- ZERO. Way back in its previous
incarnation as Game Player's PC Strategy Guide though, game previews,
reviews, strategy/hints, and designer interviews were frequently mixed
together for cover features. Then again, at that time, there were
only 6 issues a year.
There were a number of other PC Gamer issues during 1996 that would
have benefited more in terms of sales with a Red Alert cover (the
Ultimate Gaming Machine issue in July and the Future of Gaming issue
in May are two that come to mind). I would argue that the
pre-Christmas issues "sell themselves" due to their focus on possible
presents to give or ask for. Do you think the "exclusive first
review" of Red Alert (that had to go to press in early September in
order to hit newstands in early November) would really have helped
sell that many more copies of that issue? Even with their
jump-the-gun Red Alert strategy article onboard?
To reply via e-mail, be sure to remove the NOSPAM from the e-mail address.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit Game Drek -- your Definitive Guide to Gaming Grossness<tm>.
http://www.pathcom.com/~kenl/gamedrek.htm
Timothy Burke
> I'm not trying to be smug, self-righteous or imply that a professional
>reviewer will always do a better job than an amateur reviewer. I am
>simply trying to illustrate that there are pressures on a professional
>reviewer and standards of accountability that don't exist for the average
>Usenet poster. When I put on my reviewer's hat, my attitude and approach
>to a game has to change. I'd like to have a neon sign in front of my
>computer that reminds me: "It's the reader, stupid!" :-)
This is an interesting thread, and it touches on some interesting
issues, particularly with regard to Usenet. I've argued in the past in
this forum that the comp.sys.ibm.pc.games groups are one of the few
examples of Internet writing which genuinely displaces published
prose, at least from my perspective. If I'm looking for a review of a
game, I really no longer rely on the magazines, especially PC Gamer.
This is partly because I'm not sure I trust the reviews--and not
necessarily because of some big conspiracy theory, but simply because
I think they're overly generous in general. Maybe my tastes have
become more particular over time; I've played too many games to settle
for less than the best. But also, the reviews just don't appear in
time.
As a result, I'm much more inclined to survey opinion in these forums
and base my decision on that. I skipped Terra Nova because I was
suspicious of the magazine reviews, but enthusiastic comments in
csipg.action convinced me otherwise, for which I'm grateful--it's a
very good game. If nothing else, there is more opinion here, more
diversity, and that makes it easier to make a judgement. But some
posters here are also very detailed and intelligent in their
assessments.
I can't think of any other areas of cultural criticism for which this
is the case: when it comes to movies, television, books, Usenet is
mostly greasy kid's stuff. (Unless it deals with science fiction,
perhaps). So what's a professional reviewer of games, or a gaming
magazine, to do?
I've argued here in the past that the direction of PC Gamer--and
arguably CGW--is exactly the wrong direction to go. It is in any event
a fairly bad marketing decision to contend for the same micro-niche of
what is already a small market of readers, but the magazines should
concentrate on doing what only they can do well. You can't beat Usenet
and the new WWW zines to the punch, so timely reviews and previews
aren't the way to go--the only way to be timely enough is to establish
such privileged relationships with gaming companies that you
compromise the integrity of the magazines.
So what can a magazine do that is unique? What's the role of the
professional gaming writer? Mainly, do articles that no one on Usenet
can do well: in-depth journalistic coverage of the industry, extensive
profiles of major controversies and debates in the gaming community,
and perhaps really good strategic guides (though even there, FAQs
provide competition that's hard to beat).
What about reviews? There's still a place for them, but they have to
be approached differently. Even after I've seen a movie or read a
book, I'll sometimes read a review of the movie or book if it offers
interesting commentary. That's what good professional *criticism* is
all about. So the gaming magazines should feature witty, intelligent,
*detailed* reviews written with a distinctive personal perspective.
Scorpia's a great example of this last kind of gaming writer.
Actually, for all that I've been critical of him, so's Bill Trotter.
The magazines should be trying to develop a stable of idiosyncratic,
highly recognizable, highly opinionated writers with distinctive prose
styles and tastes to write reviews--not generic, interchangeable and
virtually anonymous reviewers.
Prowler
phae...@halcyon.com (Phaedrus) wrote:
> I'm sure that's the way you would react. But, sad to say, that's not
>the typical reaction.
> When people have just made a decision--particularly a decision that
>involves sacrifice, like buying something--there's a mental tendency to want
>to justify that decision. The strength of that mental tendency varies widely
>from person to person. Most people enjoy saying "I just bought X and it's
>great!" Relatively few people enjoy saying, or even thinking to themselves,
>"I just bought X--boy, was that a waste of money or what?" So, when people
>consider decisions they've already made, they tend to overvalue the positives
>of what they decided, and undervalue the negatives.
> There have been studies done on this; one that comes to mind was done
>at a racetrack. When people were waiting in line to place their bets, they
>tended to be anxious and unsure about what they were about to do. After they
>had placed the bet, they tended to be much more confident about the decision
>they had just made--even to the point of wanting to double the bet before the
>race started. People like to be right.
I beleive that the core of your argument is flawed. You say that
people are more confident after they place a wager, but that is akin
to a person being more confident that a game is good immediately after
purchase. Once the races outcome is determined, the loser is MORE
CRITICAL (He couldnt win a one man race), and the winner is OVER
CONFIDENT (I knew he would win). Therefor we can assume that a person
that buys a game that is a disapointment will be MORE CRITICAL, and
the person that buys a game that surpasses expectations will be
EXTREEMLY THRILLED.
This is one of the reasons that Quake was not universally hailed as
the best game of the year, it was a very good game, it made great
leaps in technology, but it fell well short of the hype (as in
expectation). The same can be said for why BC3K and its producer was
slammed so hard by so many people. We were promised the ultimate
game, and got the ultimate in bugware. Games with less hype are
viewed with less critisism because people dont have quite as high
expectations.
> There's plenty of evidence for this on Usenet too--the perpetual "my
>system is better than your system" in rec.games.video, "my computer is better
>than your computer" in comp.sys.whatever, "my car is better than your car"
>in rec.autos.whatever, etc., etc. People are simply more likely to defend
>something they own than something they don't.
There is a definite thread of truth to this part, but this is
something the person had a large part in. The analogy here would be
why a game designer would think his program was the "last thing you
will ever desire". Unlike the purchase of a piece of software, the PC
is usually a more personal, customised, and expensive venture, and so
the same phychological tendencies do not apply.
> So yes, I do feel that a reviewer who received a review copy of the game
>is in a better position to be objective than someone who bought the game.
There is no way I will ever believe that one persons view is more
valuable, or accurate than the hundreds of views I can draw upon from
usenet. I have the ability to cull out the whinning babies and the
jerk who slam it without giving reason, and come up with a reasonable
assesment of how I will like the game based on what others say, and
what I tend to like myself.
mbaldi wants no spam at ix dot netcom dot com
DO NOT SEND JUNK E-MAIL:
"By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer meets
the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is
unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By
Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is
punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever
is greater, for each violation."
Kirk Macdonald
On Thu, 17 Apr 1997 00:07:32 GMT, tjb...@op.net (Timothy Burke)
scribbled:
>On 15 Apr 1997 22:23:41 GMT, pami...@plains.nodak.edu (Patrick C
>Miller) wrote:
>
>
>> I'm not trying to be smug, self-righteous or imply that a professional
>>reviewer will always do a better job than an amateur reviewer. I am
>>simply trying to illustrate that there are pressures on a professional
>>reviewer and standards of accountability that don't exist for the average
>>Usenet poster. When I put on my reviewer's hat, my attitude and approach
>>to a game has to change. I'd like to have a neon sign in front of my
>>computer that reminds me: "It's the reader, stupid!" :-)
>
>This is an interesting thread, and it touches on some interesting
>issues, particularly with regard to Usenet. I've argued in the past in
>this forum that the comp.sys.ibm.pc.games groups are one of the few
>examples of Internet writing which genuinely displaces published
>prose, at least from my perspective. If I'm looking for a review of a
>game, I really no longer rely on the magazines, especially PC Gamer.
>This is partly because I'm not sure I trust the reviews--and not
>necessarily because of some big conspiracy theory, but simply because
>I think they're overly generous in general. Maybe my tastes have
>become more particular over time; I've played too many games to settle
>for less than the best. But also, the reviews just don't appear in
>time.
>
<snippage>
>
One thing I think we need to keep in mind is that "we" out here;
browsing the Strategic games newsgroup; are probably a bit more
experienced than the average PC game magazine reader; if for no other
reason that we are making that extra effort to find information,
tactics and strategies for the games we play. The average
Joe/Josephine that picks up a PCG or CGW might be checking to see if
"Catfight" is really as good as it looks! We need to realize that the
magazines have to write for that person, also; not just at "our"
level. Just my 2 cents.
(No I don't intend to whip the dead "beta review" horse in this post.
Get over it.)
Kirk Macdonald <hag...@gte.net>
"Age does not bring wisdom, ...but it does give perspective."
-- Robert Heinlein
Groundskeeper Willie
>Actually, he's made quite a number of good points. About which of his
>statements do you disagree with exactly? Please enumerate.
I am now going to put ass out on the line and make a bold prediction:
I think that Critical Bill IS Homer Simpson.
If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. If I'm right, I'll post the methodology
used to determine this.
Oh, what the Hell, I'll post it now:
1. There is very little difference between their E-Mails usernames.
2. They both come from Hotmail.com.
3. They both share the same (frequently moronic) ideas.
4. Their signatures are dead identical.
Any comments?
ACH-AYE -- Clone them sheep
Homer Simpson
On 16 Apr 1997 07:53:16 GMT, pami...@plains.nodak.edu (Patrick C
Miller) wrote:
> Of course, none of that would mean a damn thing if a former CGW
>editor named Chris Lombardi hadn't decided to take a chance on me.
>You'll have to ask him why he took the risk. I know that he didn't hire
>me for my dashing good looks. T. Liam McDonald tends to get those jobs.
Hmm, was that a backdoor slam of TLM? :>
>: You are freelance and must have experienced some lulls in your work.
>: Imagine a game magazine that culls the bad reviews from the bad and
>: simply does not supply work to certain reviewers.
>
>: No bag of money is going to appear at your door, you just won't get
>: work if you piss off some of the big boys in the biz.
>
>: Oh, let me guess, you're going to deny this has EVER happened in the
>: business. Go on, I can use the laugh.
> Once again, Bill, you demonstrate your ignorance of the subject, as
>well as your penchant for conspiracies. I do freelance writing, but I
>don't make my living from freelancing. As far as I know, few
>professional game reviewers do. I could stop writing reviews today and it
>would make little difference in my standard of living.
>
> And just for the record, I have pissed off some big boys in the game
>publishing business. I have the letters and E-mail to prove it. Hell, I've
>even pissed off Johnny Wilson. But guess what? I'm still writing
>reviews and getting more offers for work than ever. It's gotten to the
>point where I have to turn editors down. What does that tell you about your
>conspiracy theory?
I think you missed his point. Just because YOU personally don't
depend on your review writing to make your living doesn't mean others
don't. All of you in the game mag industry are decrying CB's postings
as "conspiracy theories". Call me a cynic but in every other walk of
life where there are organizations, however large or small, there
exists favouritism, cronyism, or nepotism to varying degrees.
Personality clashes can and often do affect working relationships.
Are you really so naive as to believe the computer game magazine
industry is somehow miraculously free of such elements of human
nature? Conspiracy? Only if human nature constitutes a conspiracy.
Theory? Hardly. Just take the blinders off and walk around the real
world.
Or maybe I'm totally wrong and you guys really do work in a Utopian
environment.
Robin G. Kim
Homer Simpson <gd...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>pami...@plains.nodak.edu (Patrick C Miller) wrote:
>> Once again, Bill, you demonstrate your ignorance of the subject, as
>>well as your penchant for conspiracies. I do freelance writing, but I
>>don't make my living from freelancing. As far as I know, few
>>professional game reviewers do. I could stop writing reviews today and it
>>would make little difference in my standard of living.
>
>depend on your review writing to make your living doesn't mean others
>don't.
That's true, which was probably why he added "As far as I know, few
professional game reviewers do."
BTW, if there's anyone out there whose sole source of income derives from
freelance writing for computer game magazines, give me your home address
and I'll mail you some food. You probably get tired of eating rice and
beans everyday. :^)
I suspect you have no idea how little money most of us make doing this,
"Homer."
>All of you in the game mag industry are decrying CB's postings
>as "conspiracy theories".
"All"? Please. Do you think we in the game mag industry are
conspiring against CB? ;^)
>Call me a cynic but in every other walk of
>life where there are organizations, however large or small, there
>exists favouritism, cronyism, or nepotism to varying degrees.
>Personality clashes can and often do affect working relationships.
>Are you really so naive as to believe the computer game magazine
>industry is somehow miraculously free of such elements of human
>nature? Conspiracy? Only if human nature constitutes a conspiracy.
>Theory? Hardly. Just take the blinders off and walk around the real
>world.
I agree that such undesirable behavior probably does take place at
least sometimes. The question is how often it occurs. CB's posts seem
to imply that he thinks this sort of thing is the norm--big
difference. Do you as well? If so, on what do you base this
assumption? Are you trying to get Patrick to admit that such behavior
might occur occasionally? He had already done so in previous post.
>Or maybe I'm totally wrong and you guys really do work in a Utopian
>environment.
I don't believe this to be universally true, but in my personal
experience, it's been Utopian enough so far.
Alex Van Der Hengst
On Thu, 17 Apr 1997 00:26:35 GMT, gd...@hotmail.com (Critical Bill)
wrote:
>On Wed, 16 Apr 1997 14:15:13 GMT, mc...@ix.netcom.com (Thomas Liam
>McDonald) wrote:
<SNIP>
>>Oh, and if I want to call you an ignorate grandstanding punk who is
>>simply trying to stir up trouble so that people pay attention to him
>>(like a tot playing in his own excrement) I'll use my own name, thank
>>you very much.
>
>Now you're a tough guy too. Let me tell you, it takes a big man to
>post his real email address. Me. I don't want to put up with getting
>spam, mail bombs and mailing lists added to my personal account.
>
>If that makes me a tot, then so be it. I call it protecting one's
>privacy from Net Geeks and Spam mailing houses. I guess you just love
>getting those "Make $1,000,000.00 in 10 minutes" spam messages a
>hundred times a day?
>
Bill,
What does that have to do with using your REAL name? You can still
continue to use your hotmail account, and use your real name. What
does your real name have to do with you receiving spam?
>"Game Drek gives me all the Gaming Grossness (tm) I can handle" - Critical Bill
>
>http://www.pathcom.com/~kenl/gamedrek.htm
Later
Patrick C Miller
Homer Simpson (gd...@NOSPAMhotmail.com) wrote:
: On 16 Apr 1997 07:53:16 GMT, pami...@plains.nodak.edu (Patrick C
: Miller) wrote:
: > Of course, none of that would mean a damn thing if a former CGW
: >editor named Chris Lombardi hadn't decided to take a chance on me.
: >You'll have to ask him why he took the risk. I know that he didn't hire
: >me for my dashing good looks. T. Liam McDonald tends to get those jobs.
: Hmm, was that a backdoor slam of TLM? :>
Tom is sharp enough to know what it was.
: >: You are freelance and must have experienced some lulls in your work.
: >: Imagine a game magazine that culls the bad reviews from the bad and
: >: simply does not supply work to certain reviewers.
: >
: >: No bag of money is going to appear at your door, you just won't get
: >: work if you piss off some of the big boys in the biz.
: >
: >: Oh, let me guess, you're going to deny this has EVER happened in the
: >: business. Go on, I can use the laugh.
: > Once again, Bill, you demonstrate your ignorance of the subject, as
: >well as your penchant for conspiracies. I do freelance writing, but I
: >don't make my living from freelancing. As far as I know, few
: >professional game reviewers do. I could stop writing reviews today and it
: >would make little difference in my standard of living.
: >
: > And just for the record, I have pissed off some big boys in the game
: >publishing business. I have the letters and E-mail to prove it. Hell, I've
: >even pissed off Johnny Wilson. But guess what? I'm still writing
: >reviews and getting more offers for work than ever. It's gotten to the
: >point where I have to turn editors down. What does that tell you about your
: >conspiracy theory?
: I think you missed his point. Just because YOU personally don't
: depend on your review writing to make your living doesn't mean others
: don't.
: All of you in the game mag industry are decrying CB's postings
: as "conspiracy theories". Call me a cynic but in every other walk of
: life where there are organizations, however large or small, there
: exists favouritism, cronyism, or nepotism to varying degrees.
: Personality clashes can and often do affect working relationships.
: Are you really so naive as to believe the computer game magazine
: industry is somehow miraculously free of such elements of human
: nature? Conspiracy? Only if human nature constitutes a conspiracy.
: Theory? Hardly. Just take the blinders off and walk around the real
: world.
: Or maybe I'm totally wrong and you guys really do work in a Utopian
: environment.
Oh jeez, now I'm caught between Hypocritical Bill and Homer Simpelton,
the Net's Anonymous Nattering Nabobs of Negativism. Whatever shall I do?
Let me make this as simple as possible for both of you: The difference
between what I post here and what you and Bill post is that my writing is
based on real-life, firsthand experience. I take responsibility for the
information I post, which is why my name is on it. I don't pretend to
possess any knowledge beyond what I know to be true. I have never
portrayed myself as being representative of all reviewers.
However, I will hazard an educated guess that if you surveyed all the
publications and Web sites that pay their reviewers, the vast majority of
these reviewers are people like me who have full-time jobs and write
reviews on a part-time basis. If you have information to the contrary,
please enlighten us.
Now, in contrast to what I post on the newsgroups, what you and Bill write
about is largely based on wild speculation, faulty assumptions and
misconceptions. For you to tell me to "walk around the real world" is
truly laughable. Could you be any more condescending, arrogant and
egotistical? It's hard to imagine that you could.
I've been working since I was in junior high school and I
worked my way through college. I have spent 20 years making a living by
working in the news media, in the business world and in government, NOT
writing game reviews. I support a wife, two kids and a cat. I make
house payments and pay taxes. Two weeks ago, my family went through the
worst blizzard in the last 50 years with no electricity or heat. I'm now
helping my community battle the biggest flood in more than 100 years.
I'm listening to the radio as I write this and hearing that water is
coming through and over some of the dikes around town. I'll be out of
here shortly to help fight the flood.
That's life in my "Utopian environment," Homer. How's life in your "real
world." Does your wife still have a giant blue beehive? Are you getting
enough beer and donuts? How very nice.
All this certainly doesn't mean that I know everything, but I think it
gives me a taste of what life in the "real world" is like. If it makes
you feel any better, I know that abuses do occur in game reviewing and I
know that mistakes can and will happen in this business. Apparently this
is a big surprise to you, but as a resident of the "real world," it's not
news to me. The bottom line is whether people choose to believe someone
with firsthand, working knowledge of game reviewing or a couple of yahoos
who *think* they know everything but really don't have a clue.
Your "nym" is well chosen, Homer. You really are a joke.
Patrick C Miller
Critical Bill (gd...@hotmail.com) wrote:
: On 16 Apr 1997 07:53:16 GMT, pami...@plains.nodak.edu (Patrick C
: Miller) wrote:
: >: I've always wondered about this, and I've got to ask. What exact
: >: qualifications do you "professional reviewers" have?
: >
: > Professional reviewers don't have to have any qualifications beyond
: >having someone agree to pay them to write a review.
: Then why do all you guys act like such arrogant pricks.
: I can take it from the acadamia crowd, they're socially maladjusted
: and their Phd's have given them inflated heads, but from computer game
: reviewers, come on?
You haven't dealt with many media types, have you?
Patrick C Miller
Thomas Liam McDonald (mc...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Don't square of against Mr. Miller, you will lose. This guy's been
: sandbagging walls for a week and will also be working as a roving
: reporter when the water crests out Fargo way.
I'm in Grand Forks, Tom, not Fargo! We're along the same river, just
70 miles farther north. I wish someone would name a movie after our town
so that we could get some of the media attention. :-)
-----------------------------------
Patrick C. Miller
War & Strategy Freelance Writer
Computer Gaming World
-----------------------------------
"The battle is more a killing of the
enemy's courage than his soldiers."
-- Clausewitz
Thomas Liam McDonald
On 17 Apr 1997 16:21:20 GMT, pami...@plains.nodak.edu (Patrick C
Miller) wrote:
>Homer Simpson (gd...@NOSPAMhotmail.com) wrote:
>: On 16 Apr 1997 07:53:16 GMT, pami...@plains.nodak.edu (Patrick C
>: Miller) wrote:
>
>: > Of course, none of that would mean a damn thing if a former CGW
>: >editor named Chris Lombardi hadn't decided to take a chance on me.
>: >You'll have to ask him why he took the risk. I know that he didn't hire
>: >me for my dashing good looks. T. Liam McDonald tends to get those jobs.
>
>: Hmm, was that a backdoor slam of TLM? :>
>
> Tom is sharp enough to know what it was.
That was Patrick conceeding the obvious.
>
>: Or maybe I'm totally wrong and you guys really do work in a Utopian
>: environment.
>
> Oh jeez, now I'm caught between Hypocritical Bill and Homer Simpelton,
>the Net's Anonymous Nattering Nabobs of Negativism. Whatever shall I do?
>
Don't square of against Mr. Miller, you will lose. This guy's been
sandbagging walls for a week and will also be working as a roving
reporter when the water crests out Fargo way. Is that enough reality
for you Homey? Not exactly living in a cartoon world with a cartoon
persona spending his evenings peeing by the side of the information
superhighway.
TLMcD
zifnab
gd...@hotmail.com (Critical Bill) wrote
>Let me get this straight; all three major game magazines, never before
>giving the same due to a non-Major Preview game, suddenly decide (as
>if possessed of one mind) to put Red Alert as their cover story.
Let's see. Command and Conquer is one of the most successful games of
the year. C&C: Red Alert is highly anticipated by the gaming community
and any info on the game is desired. So, by putting RA on the cover,
people will buy. So, ***GASP*** magazines put RA on the cover to sell
copies. Oh no, a mag that wants to increase their sales, what is the
world coming to.
infoghost
Who's your boss? Pat Roberstson?
Critical Bill <gd...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<33635e75...@snews.zippo.com>...
> I'm wondering if the illustrious Computer Games: Strategy Plus still
> features their "Adult" porno game ads?
>
> BTW, I'm not a prude, I'm asking for a reason. My colleagues at work
> tend to trade magazines and with the recent explosion in the PC games
> market, many of them are interested in my hobby. I lent one of them
> (unfortunately the Executive VP) a copy of CG: S+ and thought nothing
> of it.
>
> The next week he brought it back noticeably irate and asked why there
> were "Adult" ads in this magazine. I hadn't really given it much
> thought, but it seems his young boys (g) were ogling the pics and he
> wasn't too impressed (you KNOW how parents can be).
>
> I only pick the mag up here and there, and haven't grabbed one in
> months and I'm wondering if the ads are still in there. Just wondering
> if I can use it for trade-bait for the newest Golf World. :>
>
> BTW, I'd look myself if I could find an unsealed one, but that's the
> only version the stores here carry.
>
>
>
> -
Charles A. Morris
Critical Bill <gd...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<33635e75...@snews.zippo.com>...
> I'm wondering if the illustrious Computer Games: Strategy Plus still
> features their "Adult" porno game ads?
>
> BTW, I'm not a prude, I'm asking for a reason. My colleagues at work
> tend to trade magazines and with the recent explosion in the PC games
> market, many of them are interested in my hobby. I lent one of them
> (unfortunately the Executive VP) a copy of CG: S+ and thought nothing
> of it.
>
> The next week he brought it back noticeably irate and asked why there
> were "Adult" ads in this magazine. I hadn't really given it much
> thought, but it seems his young boys (g) were ogling the pics and he
> wasn't too impressed (you KNOW how parents can be).
>
> I only pick the mag up here and there, and haven't grabbed one in
> months and I'm wondering if the ads are still in there. Just wondering
> if I can use it for trade-bait for the newest Golf World. :>
>
> BTW, I'd look myself if I could find an unsealed one, but that's the
> only version the stores here carry.
usual full page ad for the Adult games. The May issue, though, has the
Adult games listed in the same ad with the "regular" games, so there are
only one or two small pictures for the Adult games in that ad.
Regards,
Lynda
Joe Reeves
> And BTW, you're overestimating your contribution to society by calling
> it "work". I'd call it shit-on-a-page by an untalented hack who thinks
> he's some big man cuz he writes computer game reviews.
I'd say you've got his reviews confused with your web page.
--
Joe Reeves - Id nonus gratum anus rodentum.
jre...@scitynet.net - remove the 's' in scitynet to reply
"Mottos are for sissies."
Mark Asher
> Timothy Burke <tjb...@op.net> wrote in article
<3355655...@news.op.net>...
snip
> I've argued here in the past that the direction of PC Gamer--and
> arguably CGW--is exactly the wrong direction to go. It is in any event
> a fairly bad marketing decision to contend for the same micro-niche of
> what is already a small market of readers, but the magazines should
> concentrate on doing what only they can do well. You can't beat Usenet
> and the new WWW zines to the punch, so timely reviews and previews
> aren't the way to go--the only way to be timely enough is to establish
> such privileged relationships with gaming companies that you
> compromise the integrity of the magazines.
>
> So what can a magazine do that is unique? What's the role of the
> professional gaming writer? Mainly, do articles that no one on Usenet
> can do well: in-depth journalistic coverage of the industry, extensive
> profiles of major controversies and debates in the gaming community,
> and perhaps really good strategic guides (though even there, FAQs
> provide competition that's hard to beat).
I think we need this grognard's approach in a gaming mag, but I'm not
convinced that the Usenet market is actually bigger than the current game
magazine market. If PC Gamer has a circulation of 150,000, that is probably
larger than the number of Usenet lurkers. So I think the game mags probably
provide a service that many of their readers wouldn't already have -- in
effect, they beat Usenet and the websites to the punch for many readers
simply because many readers don't take advantage of the Internet. For us
Usenetters, however, the mags don't offer much. I'd love a magazine that
reviewed games several months after they were released and did a real
in-depth job and provided thorough strategy tips for the game as well.
There's probably a market for it, but it's probably small and there may not
be much money in it.
> What about reviews? There's still a place for them, but they have to
> be approached differently. Even after I've seen a movie or read a
> book, I'll sometimes read a review of the movie or book if it offers
> interesting commentary. That's what good professional *criticism* is
> all about. So the gaming magazines should feature witty, intelligent,
> *detailed* reviews written with a distinctive personal perspective.
> Scorpia's a great example of this last kind of gaming writer.
> Actually, for all that I've been critical of him, so's Bill Trotter.
> The magazines should be trying to develop a stable of idiosyncratic,
> highly recognizable, highly opinionated writers with distinctive prose
> styles and tastes to write reviews--not generic, interchangeable and
> virtually anonymous reviewers.
I'm not sure computer games have the kind of depth that lends itself to
interesting commentary that movies and books have. In some cases, perhaps.
I could see Bill Trotter writing a lengthy review of a Civil War game in
which he writes about the historical context of the battles. That would be
interesting -- except I don't like wargames. For a fantasy game, I dunno?
Are you going to critique the story in the game in the way that a story in
a movie is critiqued? Same for a SF game (btw, did you notice on CGW's
latest cover with Starcraft as the lead that they refer to it as a "Sci-Fi"
game, heh heh).
William Harris
In article <5j20hc$kap$1...@daily-planet.nodak.edu>, pami...@plains.nodak.edu
says...
>Now someone might think he's the
>greatest reviewer in the world, have a degree from the Martin Cirulis
>Charm School and Reviewer's College and have reviews up the wazoo
>published on various Web sites, but unless he's been paid to write these
>reviews, he's only an amateur. In other words, you have to prove to some
>editor at a publication or Web site that your writing and opinions are
>worth paying for.
Heh-heh. I was paid for an article I wrote for the Color Computer Magazine,
and got royalties for the program-on-tape they sold, so I suppose I am a
professional computer journalist. :-)
--
William Harris
Robin G. Kim
Critical Bill <gd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>op...@marconi.ih.lucent.com (Robin G. Kim) wrote:
>
>>BTW, if there's anyone out there whose sole source of income derives from
>>freelance writing for computer game magazines, give me your home address
>>and I'll mail you some food. You probably get tired of eating rice and
>>beans everyday. :^)
>
>You're missing an integral point here; we said nothing about only
>being FREELANCE until Patrick inserted it into the conversation. I'm
>talking about those people who write for the magazine, but also derive
>their income from working at a game magazine (be that editing, or
>whatever).
Sorry, Bill, I must have misinterpreted your earlier post, which I quote
below along with Patrick's response.
>: You are freelance and must have experienced some lulls in your work.
>: Imagine a game magazine that culls the bad reviews from the bad and
>: simply does not supply work to certain reviewers.
>
>: No bag of money is going to appear at your door, you just won't get
>: work if you piss off some of the big boys in the biz.
>
>: Oh, let me guess, you're going to deny this has EVER happened in the
>: business. Go on, I can use the laugh.
> Once again, Bill, you demonstrate your ignorance of the subject, as
>well as your penchant for conspiracies. I do freelance writing, but I
>don't make my living from freelancing. As far as I know, few
>professional game reviewers do.
When you said "freelance," I thought you meant freelance, not a magazine's
in-house staff. My mistake. :^)
Ben
Critical Bill wrote:
> I agree totally. I make sure to filter out the comments of beta
> testers and game rag writers while doing it though. What remains is
> usually truthful and unbiased.
Everything is biased.
No offense, Bill, but I sometimes wonder how you manage to play ANY
game. You ARE critical- to a fault, at times. But the minutae which you
ascribe to professional reviewers (and beta testers, it seems) can be as
easily applied to the average gamer (minus the pay-off conspiracy
theories... I get enough irrational paranoia from watching the X-Files).
I can think of many reasons not to trust ANY post on the usenet- or the
opinion of anyone other than myself, for that matter. But I would rather
take the chance of getting some biased input rather than take none at
all.
For what it is worth, your input is biased as well. Your web site
displays an almost gleeful approach to dissing games- a more paranoid
person than myself might be tempted to think that you *enjoy* hating
games, and that you adjust your opinions accordingly.
You are entitled to your opinions, of course, but exactly how much more
useful are they than those of the people you criticize? You claim that
print magazines (and beta testers, and anyone related to the game
industry...) are far too biased in favor of games. I claim that you are
far too biased in opposition of games. Your site (and your posts) are
amusing, and I enjoy reading them, but I have not found them
particularly helpful.
This is not a flame, and I am not even really suggesting that you change
your opinions- I am just lending my perspective. I read a fair number of
game magazines, and I visit a fair number of game sites. I like some
better than others, but even in those which I dislike, I have never seen
anything to make me believe that there is some widespread, devious
scheme to fool gamers with soft-hitting reviews in exchange for cash
from game companies. Some reviews are not that great, but I would
attribute that to bad writing rather than some sinister bias. Just me.
As I said, your alternative is a little too "X-Files" for me...
Regards,
Benjamin E. Sones
feld...@sprynet.com
steve b./cgs+
In article <33561e2f...@news.pathcom.com>, gd...@NOSPAMhotmail.com
says...
> I do remember Strategy Plus's Red Alert cover in April 96--in fact I
> have it here. But let me ask you this, since you're the gaming mag
> industry guy. How many times has your own publication devoted an
> entire cover to a game that was not being PREVIEWED in a MAJOR FEATURE
> in that issue? I only have about 16 or so issues of S+ and in those,
> the answer is ZERO.
We did a review cover for Origin's Crusader: No Remorse in November of
1995.
Josh Mandel
steve b./cgs+ wrote:
> I *think* the policy is no more full-page ads for single adult games
Oh, great. So what are we single adults supposed to play?
steve b./cgs+
In article <01bc4b6f$1dca9500$9547...@Pcharlesm.execpc.com>,
char...@execpc.com says...
> I'm wondering if the illustrious Computer Games: Strategy Plus still
> features their "Adult" porno game ads?
I *think* the policy is no more full-page ads for single adult games,
just the same mail order ads that most of the other magazines accept. But
I don't know for sure (the ad guys are in Chicago, we're in Vermont).
You can also get a "no-smut" version of the magazine (just call the toll-
free sub number and request it).
Groundskeeper Willie
>If you had a brain in yur head, or had the basic intelligence needed
>to examine mailing headers, you would see that we are indeed two
>people.
And I think you're a delusional loony with multiple personalities.
>Laugh all you want moron, I hope your parent's have lots of money, cuz
>with your brains, it's the unemployment line fer you.
<chuckle>
Veteran
>On the other hand, it is a FACT that some magazines do accept payment
>for their cover stories as if they were advertisements. Many times the
>company provides the copy and the mag simply edits it for veracity.
>
>I am not going to name names, but if you are in any way connected to
>the magazine biz, you know which ones I'm talking about.
I'm going to really step out on a limb and say that I'll bet you have
no names in which to name! I think everyone wants to see this proof
you keep eluding to, produce it or admit that you were bluffing and
lying. So??? Where is this "fact"?
Veteran
Veteran
> Oh jeez, now I'm caught between Hypocritical Bill and Homer Simpelton,
>the Net's Anonymous Nattering Nabobs of Negativism. Whatever shall I do?
Patrick, surely you realize that CB and Homer are one and the same.
heck their e-mail address....bit of a coincidence eh?
Well said my friend! As someone who has battled through 7 hurricanes,
I know what it's like to battle Mother Nature (a battle noone ever
wins, she'll do what she wants!). Good luck!
Veteran
Ben
Critical Bill wrote:
> Bingo, and guess what? Red Alert sold well over a million copies upon
> release. Just a coincidence, right? Westwood couldn't have wanted
> those covers just to sell more copies of the game could they?
Never have I seen a more blatant example of circular reasoning.
I would say that it is very likely a coincidence, if it is even true at
all. Does "Homer" have every issue that each of those magazines have
ever printed, or is he pulling his data out of his ass?
And even if his data is correct, exactly what possible motive would any
magazine possess to do such a thing? Why would Westwood pay anything to
anyone when they could as easily accomplish the same thing for free?
I do agree that I have heard a lot of suspiciously unbelievable things
in this thread, but most of them are in your posts.
Adam G. Unikowsky
Critical Bill wrote:
> On the other hand, it is a FACT that some magazines do accept payment
> for their cover stories as if they were advertisements. Many times the
> company provides the copy and the mag simply edits it for veracity.
>
> I am not going to name names, but if you are in any way connected to
> the magazine biz, you know which ones I'm talking about.
>
Considering your naivete about the way things work I seriously doubt you
actually have someone in mind when you make that statement. Maybe, the
fact that you spend hours daily flaming various magazines and actually
have their editors respond makes you feel, in some twisted way, like
"part" of the magazine industry (look, mommy, the actual editor sent me
an email! I feel important!). But trust me, you aren't.
-Adam
Matthew Duncan
In article <335959aa...@snews.zippo.com>,
Critical Bill <gd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Before I post the list, here's some excerpts from PC Lamer concerning
>their criteria for determining games for this list:
>
>"It was a mammoth undertaking, but we did it - we travelled back
>through the entire history of PC gaming, from the days of CGA
>(remember that?) to the present day, and compiled the definitive,
>unquestionable (although no doubt you'll try) listing of the greatest
>PC games ever created."
>
>I just wanted to post this to head off possible disclaimers as to
>their Top 50 selection criteria.
>
>PC Lamer's Best 50 Games Ever:
>
>50. Daggerfall - Bethesda
>49. Pro Pinball: The Web - Interplay
>48. Tony La Russa Baseball 3 - Storm Front
>47. Star Trail: ROA - Sir-Tech
>46. Close Combat - Microsoft
>45. V for Victory Series - 360
>44. Silent Hunter - SSI
>43. Might & Magic 3: The Isles of Terra - New World
>42. FPS: Football Pro - Sierra
>41. Diablo - Blizzard
>40. Speedball 2 - The Bitmap Brothers
>39. Indiana Jones & the Fate of Atlantis - Lucasarts
>38. SimCity 2000 - Maxis
>37. D/Generation - Mindscape
>36. Triple Play '97 - Electronic Arts
>35. Monkey Island 2: LeChuck's Revenge - Lucasarts
>34. Master of Orion - Microprose
>33. Star Control 2 - Accolade
>32. Wing Commander: The Kilrathi Saga - Origin
>31. Harpoon 2 - 360
>30. Lemmings - Psygnosis
>29. Railroad Tycoon - Microprose
>28. The Complete Ultima 7 - Origin
>27. NHL '97 - Electronic Arts
>26. Chuck Yeager's Air Combat - Electronic Arts
>25. Syndicate - Bullfrog
>24. Beavis & Butt-Head in Virtual Stupidity - Viacom New Media
>23. Virtual Pool - Interplay
>22. Alone in the Dark - I-Motion
>21. Populous - Electronic Arts
>20. Ultima Underworld 1 & 2 - Origin
>19. Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Fathers - Sierra
>18. Descent - Interplay
>17. EF2000 - Ocean of America
>16. Duke Nukem 3D - 3D Realms
>15. Quake - id Software
>14. Tomb Raider - Eidos Interactive
>13. Panzer General - SSI
>12. Red Baron - Sierra
>11. Sam & Max Hit the Road - Lucasarts
>
>And now the Top Ten Best Games of All Time!!
>
>10. AH-64D Longbow - Jane's Sims
>9. Links LS - Access
>8. Command & Conquer: Red Alert - Westwood
>7. X-COM: UFO Defense - Microprose
>6. Heroes of Might & Magic 2 - New World
>5. System Shock - Origin
>4. Civilization 2 - Microprose
>3. WarCraft 2 - Blizzard
>2. Doom - id Software
>
>1. TIE Fighter - Lucasarts
>
>Now, I have a few points to make.
>
[snip]
Sorry Bill... band width ya know. I think an interesting analysis would be
to also post the percentages these games got in their initial reviews. You
should see that many of them did not get Editor's Choice or received under
the "classic" rating. You up for it Bill? In a similar note, I'd like to
see the Top Ten Editor's Choice/"Classic" Rating games that bombed/never
made it to retail etc.
Of course, if I had all the raw data I could do a statisitical analysis
between the reviewed percentage and the percentage implied under a Top 50
placing assuming you could assign a game that makes the Top 50 "gets" a
90% or something. I bet it comes out significant at p<.05.
Matt.
Adam G. Unikowsky
Critical Bill wrote:
> Reality Check: You are a freelance writer and CGW et al will let you
> know exactly what they want you to know. What do you think, Johnny
> Wilson is going to bring you in his office and say "Hey Pat, just
> wanted to let you know we're on the take".
>
And what exactly are you? You know _nothing_ compared of computer game
writing compared to Patrick C. Miller. You are some guy who feels
important flaming other people under different names. You probably, by
dint of your long hours of magazine analysis (which seems more and more
pathetic the more I think about it) consider yourself some kind of
"figure" who is now eligible to utter great, inside truths about the
scum who review alphas- no, excuse me, screenshots- and who are living
it up on the bribes of bloated computer game companies. Well, get this
into your head: you're wrong. Freelance reviewers review games because
they enjoy it. For the hundred bucks or so they'll get for a review,
why on earth would they sacrifice their integrity? And the people who
work at the magazines aren't corrupt; they aren't bloated corporate
entities; they're people with jobs, normal people who aren't criminals.
Is this really a stunning concept to you?
> Ain't gonna happen. What you know about CGW I could get from a
> matchbox cover.
>
And where do you get what _you_ know about CGW? The voices in your
head?
>
> Comprendez-vous? He's asking that since hospitals change medical
> records to halt lawsuits, government gets caught in illegal military
> operations, banks and investment houses make unethical deals and
> engage in insider trading, school teachers are caught selling crack to
> pre-schoolers, etc., etc., etc., then HOW IN HELL are we to believe
> that game magazines live in some Utopian bubble unaffected by the
> world's ills?
>
There isn't some kind of government/military/X-files cover-up going on
here. I mean, we're talking about COMPUTER GAMES here. Sure, I like
'em as much as the next guy, but do you really think that the game
industry is big enough to support these massive conspiracies you and
your various alter egos seem to continually imply? I mean, really!
(Oh, and by the way, it's "comprenez-vous" :^>)
>
> Homer could easily be a very powerful or inflential person whose
> earnings far outstrip your own and only gets on here because gaming is
> his hobby. He might OTOH be someone who cannot show his true name for
> fear of reprisal based on his position of authority.
>
> You probably don't care now, but you might one day.
>
This is idiotic. First, it's painfully obvious that Homer Simpson is
you. Second, even if he wasn't, he wouldn't go under a pseudonym. Why
would he? The only people who go under nyms, other than massive
celebrities (and even Quentin Tarantino is on usenet under his real
name) are people like you who like being self-declared anonymous
figures.
-Adam (my real name) at md...@musica.mcgill.ca (my real address)
Scott Sendlein
Josh Mandel (jo...@crosslink.net) wrote:
: steve b./cgs+ wrote:
: > I *think* the policy is no more full-page ads for single adult games
Whoa!! Major troll here!!! ;-)
: Oh, great. So what are we single adults supposed to play?
--
------Return Address Modified To Reduce Spammage - Delete "*"'s----------
Scott Sendlein _____ _________.____ _____ _______
send...@emi.net / _ \ / _____/| | / _ \ \ \
Kali: _Aslan_ / /_\ \ \_____ \ | | / /_\ \ / | \
/ | \/ \| |___/ | \/ | \
"FD & A10 Aerial \____|__ /_______ /|_______ \____|__ /\____|__ /
Target Drone" \/ \/ \/ \/ \/
--> You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi. <--
Veteran
>I'm wondering if the illustrious Computer Games: Strategy Plus still
>features their "Adult" porno game ads?
>
>tend to trade magazines and with the recent explosion in the PC games
>market, many of them are interested in my hobby. I lent one of them
>(unfortunately the Executive VP) a copy of CG: S+ and thought nothing
>of it.
>
>The next week he brought it back noticeably irate and asked why there
>were "Adult" ads in this magazine. I hadn't really given it much
>thought, but it seems his young boys (g) were ogling the pics and he
>wasn't too impressed (you KNOW how parents can be).
>
>I only pick the mag up here and there, and haven't grabbed one in
>months and I'm wondering if the ads are still in there. Just wondering
>if I can use it for trade-bait for the newest Golf World. :>
>
>BTW, I'd look myself if I could find an unsealed one, but that's the
>only version the stores here carry.
This will apparantly be the only issue in which I agree with CB/Homer.
I refuse to buy Strategy + even though it has some excellent writing
simply because they promote pornography. Trash like this has NO place
in a computer game magazine! If CGW, PC Gamer, PC Games or Computer
Net Player magazines started porno ads, I'd stop buying them as well.
This is not just because I am a parent of 2 small children (although
that's certainly a factor), but because porno just doesn't belong in a
magazine that is available and widely read by children. I don't care
what the "target" audience is, it is available to children and that's
enough. If Yale Brozen (Strategy +'s publisher) wants to come out with
an adult computer magazine, fine and more power to him. But leave the
trash out of the kids hands...
Veteran