PC Accelerator R.I.P.
Mark Asher
switched to PC Gamer.
This leaves CGW, Gamer, CGS+, and Incite as mags devoted exclusively to PC
games. I'd be surprised if all of those survive too.
Bob Perez
primarily because of their highly irreverent attitude. They were
refreshingly iconoclastic. But lately it just got old, especially with the
recent over the edge stuff. I guess they knew the end was coming because
they sure let loose this last issue.
BP
"Mark Asher" <ma...@nospamcdmnet.com> wrote in message
news:HdsL4.445$Xc.1...@news1.primary.net...
Mark Asher
Ellen Cree <wah...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8dlqt8$p2j$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <HdsL4.445$Xc.1...@news1.primary.net>,
> "Mark Asher" <ma...@nospamcdmnet.com> wrote:
>
> >It's dead. Imagine pulled the plug on it. I guess the PCXL subs will be
> >switched to PC Gamer.
> >
> >This leaves CGW, Gamer, CGS+, and Incite as mags devoted exclusively to
PC
> >games. I'd be surprised if all of those survive too.
> >
> >
>
only mag I ever read
> with remotely honest preview sections. PCXL was the only mag I ever saw
that mentioned possible
> FLAWS or said anything other than, "Game zXCVZX will be the second
coming!" whenever they
> previewed something. Ah well...
Their Tomb Raider 4 preview was fantastic -- they took the preview for TR3
and just crossed out a few words and details, heh heh.
"Infantile, childish but sometimes humerous...." That's a good description.
And I'll add that they had the most distinct voice of any of the mags. Most
of the mags sort of blend together in the way they cover the industry. PCXL
stood out, though not always for the right reasons.
Bob Perez
issue previews Dark Reign 2, and reviews Majesty (7 out of 10). Picking up
another issue off the floor here, reviews of Asheron's Call (8), Ultima9
Ascension (4), Close Combat (9). They definitely were action oriented and
had little patience for crappy games, but I don't think of them as action
only at all. Their most distinctive feature was their complete irreverence
and a high dose of T&A. Personally, I thought a lot of their stuff was
pretty funny, and a lot of it was trash. Too inconsistent and way way too
much of the attempts to be funny. I always felt like "Ok, I've had enough of
that. How about some more game info".
I loved all their articles about Gia. Sigh, never met her but I'm gonna miss
her.
BP
"Michael J. Solomon" <mike...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:n9usfs8feha19dngi...@4ax.com...
> >It's dead. Imagine pulled the plug on it. I guess the PCXL subs will be
> >switched to PC Gamer.
>
> Isn't PC Accelerator an action games only magazine?
Istvan
>
> It's dead. Imagine pulled the plug on it. I guess the PCXL subs will be
> switched to PC Gamer.
>
> games. I'd be surprised if all of those survive too.
Oh MAN! I was planning for so long to subscribe to it, I kept
hearing about the infantile and inane womanizing attitude consistently maintained
in this magazine, now I'll never find out what this was all about.
BTW Incite will die out too. Mixing cool stuff with gaming just doesn't work. If I
want the hear about gadgets and stuff I'll get Men's Health or Playboy. Let's
face it, gaming is a little bit silly hobby and certainly a major turnoff
for most women so you gotta have the manly magazines too. PC Gamer will be on
of the survivors and CGW too.
Istvan.
Joel Mathis
>It's dead. Imagine pulled the plug on it. I guess the PCXL subs will be
>switched to PC Gamer.
>
>This leaves CGW, Gamer, CGS+, and Incite as mags devoted exclusively to PC
>games. I'd be surprised if all of those survive too.
Just to throw out some more depression, I've noticed it's impossible
to find CGS+ (or Computer Games I think is the current name on the
magazine) on the newstands at this point. Now they were never the
most widely distributed magazine, but I can't even find them in EB
anymore.
Joel Mathis
See the Hot Sheet at Gone Gold for my take on the day's news
http://www.gonegold.com/hot
Jeff Jones
>Just to throw out some more depression, I've noticed it's impossible
>to find CGS+ (or Computer Games I think is the current name on the
>magazine) on the newstands at this point. Now they were never the
>most widely distributed magazine, but I can't even find them in EB
>anymore.
The printed medium has six nails in it's coffin. Especially true, I would
think, of computer related material. These mags are dropping like flies
because they simply can't keep up with the internet. I used to subscribe to
Windows Magazine. After renewing, I received two issues followed by a notice
saying that "this is your last issue" and that they were going "Internet
only".
Hand held electronic reading devices are going to put the last two nails in
that coffin when they become widely used. We'll be downloading magazines to
our reading devices. This is a ways off, but it is the trend.
Btw, good riddance to PCXL.
Ellen Cree
"Mark Asher" <ma...@nospamcdmnet.com> wrote:
>It's dead. Imagine pulled the plug on it. I guess the PCXL subs will be
>switched to PC Gamer.
>
>This leaves CGW, Gamer, CGS+, and Incite as mags devoted exclusively to PC
>games. I'd be surprised if all of those survive too.
>
>
Poor bastards. Infantile, childish but sometimes humerous and so far the only mag I ever read
Michael J. Solomon
>switched to PC Gamer.
Isn't PC Accelerator an action games only magazine?
Jeff Jones
Michael J. Solomon wrote in message ...
>>It's dead. Imagine pulled the plug on it. I guess the PCXL subs will be
>>switched to PC Gamer.
>
>Isn't PC Accelerator an action games only magazine?
In essence, yes. You kind of got the impression that they believed any
non-FPS was for sissies.
Christopher E. Johnson
says...
> so far the only mag I ever read
> with remotely honest preview sections.
>
demise. In fact, I'm smiling a bit.
Chris
Istvan
Clearly not, in fact is on of those eulogy kind of things, once
its dead you try to remember the good things about it.
istvan.
richar...@hotmail.com
be
> switched to PC Gamer.
>
to PC
> games. I'd be surprised if all of those survive too.
I thought it was going to be a magazine whose niche was for games using
3D accelerators, and related hardware, and other techie tweak topics.
Thinking this, when I saw the subscription, and subscribed, I thought
it would be a way to get the latest drivers for 3D board that I have
every month, without downloading them off the Net (my brother's
computer didn't have Net access at the time). I found out they didn't
carry the drivers every month, and that was that, I cancelled the
subscription.
So, in the end, PC Accelerator was yet just anothe mag in a gulted
market. No wonder why it died.
- Richard Hutnik
--
Visit DocReason's Strategy HQ for free games, reviews, and
support and opponent finding for obscure/orphan games at:
http://www.geocities.com/timessquare/fortress/7537/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jeffrey Morris
desperately needs a National Lampoon, and they filled that void nicely.
Without them, Old Man Murray stands alone (fill me in if I'm wrong). With
Computer Gaming World being a mere shadow of what it once was (and hiring
some of the most game ignorant reviewers I've ever run across), that pretty
much leaves PC Gamer as the premier dedicated computer game magazine.
Thankfully, they're head and shoulders above the competition (online or
off). Nice try Imagine. Like many things in this business, the good are
often buried by the mediocre.
Jeff Morris
Firaxis Games
"Mark Asher" <ma...@nospamcdmnet.com> wrote in message
news:HdsL4.445$Xc.1...@news1.primary.net...
bunboy
but they were great at poking fun at what you refer to as this self
important industry. It has always amazed me that an industry that is run on
the backs of a bunch of young talented self absorbed geeks could take itself
so seriously. You figure that those folks would be maybe a little less
"self important" but alas no. Maybe the combination of youth, success, and
geekdom just doesn't breed humility.
--
Bunboy,
The people who can smile when things go wrong have found someone else
to blame.
"Jeffrey Morris" <jmo...@firaxis.com> wrote in message
news:38ff0...@news.kivex.com...
Annie Jaisser
Jeffrey Morris <jmo...@firaxis.com> wrote in message
news:38ff0...@news.kivex.com...
> I will really miss it. Basically, this self-important industry
> desperately needs a National Lampoon, and they filled that void nicely.
> Without them, Old Man Murray stands alone (fill me in if I'm wrong). With
> Computer Gaming World being a mere shadow of what it once was (and hiring
> some of the most game ignorant reviewers I've ever run across), that
pretty
> much leaves PC Gamer as the premier dedicated computer game magazine.
> Thankfully, they're head and shoulders above the competition (online or
> off). Nice try Imagine. Like many things in this business, the good are
> often buried by the mediocre.
>
> Jeff Morris
> Firaxis Games
>
bashing! Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in!
Jeff Green
CGW
(who was starting to look forward to Firaxis' next game, but now realizes
he's probably just being his usual ignorant, mediocre self. I guess I'll
wait to see what Gamer has to say about it!)
Jeff Green
thread. Apologies--I just switched to Outlook Express and am still trying to
use my ignorant, mediocre mind to figure it all out!
Sorry Annie. Now back to the CGW bashing!
Jeff Green
CGW
Annie Jaisser <ann...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8dn8gd$n5k$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
Jeffrey Morris
Jeff Morris
Firaxis Games
"Annie Jaisser" <ann...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:8dn8gd$n5k$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> Jeffrey Morris <jmo...@firaxis.com> wrote in message
> news:38ff0...@news.kivex.com...
> > I will really miss it. Basically, this self-important industry
> > desperately needs a National Lampoon, and they filled that void nicely.
> > Without them, Old Man Murray stands alone (fill me in if I'm wrong).
With
> > Computer Gaming World being a mere shadow of what it once was (and
hiring
> > some of the most game ignorant reviewers I've ever run across), that
> pretty
> > much leaves PC Gamer as the premier dedicated computer game magazine.
> > Thankfully, they're head and shoulders above the competition (online or
> > off). Nice try Imagine. Like many things in this business, the good are
> > often buried by the mediocre.
> >
> > Jeff Morris
> > Firaxis Games
> >
Quatoria
"Annie Jaisser" <ann...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Boy. I leave Usenet for just a few days, and this is what happens. More CGW
>bashing! Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in!
>
>Jeff Green
>CGW
>(who was starting to look forward to Firaxis' next game, but now realizes
>he's probably just being his usual ignorant, mediocre self. I guess I'll
>wait to see what Gamer has to say about it!)
Heh. Well, you can't take him too seriously, Jeff. I mean, he just
praised PC gamer for their quality reviewing. Oh, no, wait. He's a
developer, not a consumer. That explains the admiration. (Not that I'm
implying anything, of course. Heh heh.)
-Quatoria
--
In this unpredictable, oftentimes contentious world,
sometimes you just have to sit back, take a moment to
reflect, and say "Well, I'll be a greased Jesus!"
Derek Smart
<ma...@nospamcdmnet.com> wrote:
>"Infantile, childish but sometimes humerous...." That's a good description.
>And I'll add that they had the most distinct voice of any of the mags. Most
>of the mags sort of blend together in the way they cover the industry. PCXL
>stood out, though not always for the right reasons.
I agree
Derek Smart Ph.D.
Designer/Lead Developer
The Battlecruiser Series
www.3000ad.com
"Battlecruiser Millennium - If you're not in the game...
get in the game!"
Mark Asher
news:useufsok368l3efbp...@4ax.com...
> "Annie Jaisser" <ann...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Jeffrey Morris <jmo...@firaxis.com> wrote in message
> >news:38ff0...@news.kivex.com...
> >> I will really miss it. Basically, this self-important industry
> >> desperately needs a National Lampoon, and they filled that void nicely.
> >> Without them, Old Man Murray stands alone (fill me in if I'm wrong).
With
> >> Computer Gaming World being a mere shadow of what it once was (and
hiring
> >> some of the most game ignorant reviewers I've ever run across), that
> >pretty
> >> much leaves PC Gamer as the premier dedicated computer game magazine.
> >> Thankfully, they're head and shoulders above the competition (online or
> >> off). Nice try Imagine. Like many things in this business, the good are
> >> often buried by the mediocre.
> >>
> >> Jeff Morris
> >> Firaxis Games
> >>
CGW
> >bashing! Every time I try to get out, they pull me back in!
> >
> >Jeff Green
> >CGW
>
> invariably assumes a defensive posture, regardless of whether the
> "bashing" has merit or not.
The criticism was so general there really was no way to respond to it. How
do you counter "With Computer Gaming World being a mere shadow of what it
once was (and hiring some of the most game ignorant reviewers I've ever run
across)"? If the Firaxis guy had gotten into specifics, there might be a
basis for discussion.
> You seem like a sensible guy, Jeff. When enough people complain that
> your magazine is going in the toilet, I would have thought that you'd
> listen and take notes, rather than dismiss it with a silly remark.
> These are serious concerns for many subscribers, and it seems that
> your readers are becoming more and more frustrated with the
> cluelessness and apparent apathy of the CGW editors.
What are you basing this on? Some Usenet complaints? A more accurate look at
reader satisfaction might be to look at circulation numbers from 5 years ago
and compare them to today's figures.
> I will not be renewing my subscription to CGW for the first time in
> years, for exactly the reasons stated in this group over the last
> several months. In my opinion, Computer Gaming World *has* become
> boring, it *has* lost its focus (and much of its class, with the
> departure of JW), and it *does* seem to be having an identity crisis
> regarding its target audience. It's also become very ugly (opinion, I
> know, but one that seems to be shared by many), and content-light.
I think the entire PC game industry is changing. Games are more
action-oriented now.
> Not to mention George "We can learn alot from Pokèmon" Jones' monthly
> journeys into the inane.
>
> Sad thing is that you have this huge resource pool of feedback
> available right here, but i'll be damned if I can remember any of you
> guys ever *asking* for it. Maybe Cirulis did once or twice when he
> used to post here, but I always got the impression that he shared the
> standard CGW policy of "all usenet posters are bitter kooks with axes
> to grind, to be humored but not heeded".
So what is it you want in CGW that you're not getting? Remember, they only
have X number of pages per issue and they have to cover an ever increasing
number of games that are released.
> Here's hoping that one of you bucks the trend before your mag becomes
> nothing but a Chips & Bits catalog with screenshots.
>
> >(who was starting to look forward to Firaxis' next game, but now realizes
> >he's probably just being his usual ignorant, mediocre self. I guess I'll
> >wait to see what Gamer has to say about it!)
>
> Y'know, i'd hate to think that any CGW editor would harbor personal
> prejudice against a developer simply for a comment made on usenet. I'm
> sure you were just kidding and there were no sinister implications
> intended, but would you mind clarifying that statement? It seems that
> you've made Mr. Morris a bit nervous.
Heh -- it's funny, but I was wondering if Mr. Morris had a bit of an axe to
grind over a CGW review of a Firaxis product? I'd like him to clarify that
as long as clarifications are being asked for.
Anyway, Jeff was kidding. If he really thought that, he wouldn't have
written it.
Jeffrey Morris
It was the Wargame of the Year award for Antietam that pushed me over
the edge ;). To clarify my point, it's just that CGW's focus has shifted
away from the more scholarly periodical I fell in love with.
Jeff Morris
Firaxis Games
"Mark Asher" <ma...@nospamcdmnet.com> wrote in message
news:98IL4.600$Xc.2...@news1.primary.net...
Christopher E. Johnson
> Like many things in this business, the good are
> often buried by the mediocre.
>
> Jeff Morris
> Firaxis Games
>
>
that there just weren't enough people that got their inane humor. I
visit the Old Man Murray site all of the time, but I couldn't read
through a whole issue of PC Accelerator.
Of course, I see no reason to read any gaming magazine, but I am very,
very biased <g>.
Chris
Christopher E. Johnson
Quat...@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net says...
> Heh. Well, you can't take him too seriously, Jeff. I mean, he just
> praised PC gamer for their quality reviewing. Oh, no, wait. He's a
> developer, not a consumer. That explains the admiration. (Not that I'm
> implying anything, of course. Heh heh.)
>
> -Quatoria
>
>
Chris
Jimmy Chan
wrote:
>Mark Asher wrote:
>>
>> It's dead. Imagine pulled the plug on it. I guess the PCXL subs will be
>> switched to PC Gamer.
>>
>> This leaves CGW, Gamer, CGS+, and Incite as mags devoted exclusively to PC
>> games. I'd be surprised if all of those survive too.
>
>Oh MAN! I was planning for so long to subscribe to it, I kept
>hearing about the infantile and inane womanizing attitude consistently maintained
>in this magazine, now I'll never find out what this was all about.
I think I still have the two free copies they sent me. You want it?
Didn't really cared about the mag after reading the two free copies I
got. Seemed targeted for the teen gamers.
"Here we go again. When you can't get anything meaningful going, resort
to name calling." - Derek Smart, PhD Fraud
Mark Asher
>
> It was the Wargame of the Year award for Antietam that pushed me over
> the edge ;). To clarify my point, it's just that CGW's focus has shifted
> away from the more scholarly periodical I fell in love with.
I can understand this. Unfortunately, I think the market itself can't
support a "scholarly periodical" anymore. CGW has to compete with PC Gamer
and the other mags, and let's face it -- most readers want to read about
Quake 4 instead of Antietam. If CGW devoted more space to games like
Antietam and less space to Quake 4, they'd find themselves losing readership
and ad revenue.
Magazines can't stand still. They have to continually reinvent themselves.
Jeff Green
<cob...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"Mark Asher" <ma...@nospamcdmnet.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>> Typical. When presented with criticism, the modern CGW editor
>>> invariably assumes a defensive posture, regardless of whether the
>>> "bashing" has merit or not.
>>
>>The criticism was so general there really was no way to respond to it. How
>>do you counter "With Computer Gaming World being a mere shadow of what it
>>once was (and hiring some of the most game ignorant reviewers I've ever run
>>across)"? If the Firaxis guy had gotten into specifics, there might be a
>>basis for discussion
>
>In this particular case it was a pretty broad dig, but i've seen
>others in this group complain about specific issues that were
>similarly waved off. It's frustrating to see representatives of a
>magazine that was once so highly respected in the computer games
>community just blow off such an emphatically negative comment. Having
>a thick skin is a necessity on usenet, but when it becomes so thick
>that you can't feel the house burning down around you... I would think
>the CGW guys would ask "what's wrong with it, and how do you think we
>could make it better?", be it out of a genuine desire to improve their
>mag, or even just simple curiosity. At the very least, it would
>stimulate discussion.
>
Man, that's all we *do* at CGW. We are constantly working to make the
magazine better. We are constantly questioning ourselves, and doing
the best we can to make a better product. The reason my response was
so testy and sarcastic was exactly as was stated above by another
poster: it was just the kind of general non-constructive complaining
about the magazine that shows up here every few months. We have the
most ignorant reviewers? Tell me *who* they are and *why* they are
ignorant. We're a shadow of our former selves? How come? How is PC
Gamer so much better than us? I could have written a post like that,
instead of being sarcastic, sure. But I know in *my* heart how hard
we work at CGW, and I would rather focus on making a good product and
let that product speak for itself, rather than flail around in the
semi-regular, unwinnable, damned-if-I-do-damned-if-I-don't Usenet
flame war. Like this one, which I started. What's the point? I
actively encourage anyone with constructive criticism about Computer
Gaming World to email us at cgwle...@ziffdavis.com or me personally
at jeff...@ziffdavis.com.
For what it's worth, I don't think the house is burning down around us
at all. I've been at CGW for four years. Johnny Wilson is a god, and
there's no getting over his departure---but other than that, I think
we have a great staff right now, and I think that--once all the
growing pains are out of the way---CGW will completely reassert its
dominance in the print media. IMHO, of course.
>>> You seem like a sensible guy, Jeff. When enough people complain that
>>> your magazine is going in the toilet, I would have thought that you'd
>>> listen and take notes, rather than dismiss it with a silly remark.
>>> These are serious concerns for many subscribers, and it seems that
>>> your readers are becoming more and more frustrated with the
>>> cluelessness and apparent apathy of the CGW editors.
>>
>>What are you basing this on? Some Usenet complaints? A more accurate look at
>>reader satisfaction might be to look at circulation numbers from 5 years ago
>>and compare them to today's figures.
>
>That's true, i'm only basing it on the overwhelmingly negative
>opinions expressed in this group and others in the last year or so.
>And my own experiences, of course. But regardless of what the numbers
>show, it's amazingly clear (to myself, at least) that CGW is on the
>downward spiral, and the editors don't really seem all that concerned
>about it.
I don't know about "overwhelmingly negative". I mean, Usenet itself
is overwhelmingly negative. We get tons of positive email sent to
*our* mailbox every day. But to say that the editors aren't concerned
about the quality of the magazine is absolutely ludicrous and does not
give us any credit as human beings interested in doing a good work at
their job. I mean, come on.
s.
>>>
>>> >(who was starting to look forward to Firaxis' next game, but now realizes
>>> >he's probably just being his usual ignorant, mediocre self. I guess I'll
>>> >wait to see what Gamer has to say about it!)
>>>
>>> Y'know, i'd hate to think that any CGW editor would harbor personal
>>> prejudice against a developer simply for a comment made on usenet. I'm
>>> sure you were just kidding and there were no sinister implications
>>> intended, but would you mind clarifying that statement? It seems that
>>> you've made Mr. Morris a bit nervous.
It was a *joke*. He said that PC Gamer was the premier gaming
magazine, and that CGW had "ignorant" writers. So, as a CGW writer, I
made the JOKE that maybe I didn't know what I was talking
about---being ignorant--to be looking forward to a Firaxis game, and
that I better consult the "better" magazine, PC Gamer. Capice?
Nothing sinister. No grudges. I love Firaxis and one of my best
friends in the whole industry works there, okay? So if anything you
could say my prejudice errs on the side of being *nice* to them. But
dangit, when someone comes online and just haphazardly bashes my
magazine without putting anything behind it, you can be damn well sure
I'm going to respond. And sometimes it's just gonna be sarcastic and
petty, like it was this time. Mea culpa. We've been down this road
a milliion times before--sometimes it just gets frustrating to have to
continually do this, you know? Rest assured that the editors at CGW
*care* about the publication, they *care* about games, they are 1000%
dedicated to beating our competition at providing the best content,
and they NEVER get complacent or apathetic about the quality. Period.
The End.
>
>>Anyway, Jeff was kidding. If he really thought that, he wouldn't have
>>written it.
>
>Yeah, I figured. If he wasn't, and it actually was a poorly veiled
>threat, then it would probably be journalistic suicide.
I'm not that dumb, or smart, or sinister. Just mouthing off on
Usenet, instead of doing my job today. :)
Cheers everyone. Sorry for ruffling feathers. Now, send me those
specific, constructive criticisms of the magazine, and we can carry on
the discussion from there.......
Jeff Green
Computer Gaming World
Tom Chick
<cob...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>It's frustrating to see representatives of a
>magazine that was once so highly respected in the computer games
>community just blow off such an emphatically negative comment.
Morris made a broad and unsubstantiated claim about CGW having "some
of the most ignorant reviewers". What was Green supposed to do, take
names?
>Having
>a thick skin is a necessity on usenet, but when it becomes so thick
>that you can't feel the house burning down around you... I would think
>the CGW guys would ask "what's wrong with it, and how do you think we
>could make it better?", be it out of a genuine desire to improve their
>mag, or even just simple curiosity. At the very least, it would
>stimulate discussion.
Are you new to the newsgroups, Mr. Blue, or do you just have a
selective memory? Dig through deja.com and you'll find some mondo
threads about improving CGW with Jeff Green actively participating and
soliticing input.
>>Heh -- it's funny, but I was wondering if Mr. Morris had a bit of an axe to
>>grind over a CGW review of a Firaxis product? I'd like him to clarify that
>>as long as clarifications are being asked for.
>
>I didn't get that impression, but *shrug*. Offhand, I can't think of
>any negative reviews handed out by CGW to a Firaxis product, so there
>doesn't seem to be a motive. It just sounded to me like yet another
>disgruntled CGW subscriber in a long list.
But it did strike me a little odd that Jeff Morris signed off with the
Firaxis name. He was clearly posting as a Firaxis employee rather
than just a CGW reader.
However, I understand that it must be *very* frustrating for
developers; us usenet posters and writers can get online and say all
sorts of mean things about them and their products, but they have to
operate under a different protocol. They can put out a crappy game
and we can rip it to shreds, but if we write a crappy review, they
generally don't have the same luxury.
-Tom Chick
***** *****
***** No .sig for me, thank you. *****
***** *****
Mark Asher
> "Mark Asher" <ma...@nospamcdmnet.com> wrote:
>
> In this particular case it was a pretty broad dig, but i've seen
> others in this group complain about specific issues that were
> magazine that was once so highly respected in the computer games
> a thick skin is a necessity on usenet, but when it becomes so thick
> that you can't feel the house burning down around you... I would think
> the CGW guys would ask "what's wrong with it, and how do you think we
> could make it better?", be it out of a genuine desire to improve their
> mag, or even just simple curiosity. At the very least, it would
> stimulate discussion.
Well, I think Jeff has been involved in Usenet discussions in the past where
these issues were discussed.
snip
> >I think the entire PC game industry is changing. Games are more
> >action-oriented now.
>
> Agreed, but there are still plenty of deep strategy, war, and RPG
> titles available to write about. And anyway, an action-oriented market
> is no excuse for a boring publication. One of my biggest problems with
> CGW is its schizophrenia. It's trying to be all things to all people,
> and ends up diluted and unsatisfying.
I think this is a real problem with all the magazines, but I'm not sure how
it can be addressed. What games don't you cover? As soon as you stop
covering a certain type of game, you lose readership.
snip
> >So what is it you want in CGW that you're not getting? Remember, they
only
> >have X number of pages per issue and they have to cover an ever
increasing
> >number of games that are released.
>
> Are you asking in your capacity as a CGW contributor that is genuinely
> interested? If so, i'd be happy to discuss it. But if you're merely
> posing a rhetorical question with the intent to make me realize the
> limitations under which the CGW staff labors, then i'll not waste my
> time and yours by responding.
I'm genuinely interested. Maybe the answer is to only cover the big titles
and then cover them more in-depth, which would mean games like Antietam and
Imperialism wouldn't get reviewed. I don't know.
The Masked Debator
news:pnf=OFpgD4og+xS8eIHbWn1H7x=z...@4ax.com...
> >magazine that was once so highly respected in the computer games
> >community just blow off such an emphatically negative comment.
>
> of the most ignorant reviewers". What was Green supposed to do, take
> names?
Morris is an asshole, anyone who's ever read his now-legendary editorial on
how "gamers actually like bugs because it gives them carte blanche to bitch"
knows this. That being said, at least you know what you're going to get
with him, and at least he had the sack to come out and tell the truth about
CGW.
He could have posted anonymously, but he didn't. Now all the CGW lemmings
are scrambling to try and defend the birdcage liner that claims to be the
"#1 PC Games Magazine".. what a joke. First of all, if CGW is so great,
why the fuck are they riding Gamespot's website? I'll tell you why, because
they're going down hard and they know it. You can talk all you want about
how the PC market is shrinking, but the bottom line is, CGW has nowhere near
the clout it once did in the industry. If it did, Gamespot would be part of
CGW.com (or whatever) instead of the reverse.
> >>Heh -- it's funny, but I was wondering if Mr. Morris had a bit of an axe
to
> >>grind over a CGW review of a Firaxis product? I'd like him to clarify
that
> >>as long as clarifications are being asked for.
> >
> >I didn't get that impression, but *shrug*. Offhand, I can't think of
> >any negative reviews handed out by CGW to a Firaxis product, so there
> >doesn't seem to be a motive. It just sounded to me like yet another
> >disgruntled CGW subscriber in a long list.
No shit, pal! I've got a news flash for you -- CGW will NEVER give Firaxis
a bad rap, because they wouldn't want to piss off Sid Meier. They wouldn't
DARE threaten their ability to get interviews and big special features. I
played the Antietam demo, and it was OK, but it's obvious Sid's name
influenced the CGW crew's review of the game...
So fess 'up, CGW.. who else is on the "don't fuck with" list? Some gamers
are always accusing magazines of being paid off by developers, but you know
what? I don't think game companies even HAVE to pay. I think most gaming
mags are running so scared and are so subservient -- they don't want to bite
the hand that feeds their circulation, so to speak. Plus, online gaming
sites deliver the news faster and for free, with interactive features and
lower operating costs. Translation: CGW is gasping its dying breath.
> But it did strike me a little odd that Jeff Morris signed off with the
> Firaxis name. He was clearly posting as a Firaxis employee rather
> than just a CGW reader.
Bullshit... you don't have a .sig file that tells people who you are?
Morris always seems to sign off like that in the forums and newsgroups.
Don't give yourself so much credit that he actually gave a fuck that YOU
knew who he was and where he worked.
> However, I understand that it must be *very* frustrating for
> developers; us usenet posters and writers can get online and say all
> sorts of mean things about them and their products, but they have to
> operate under a different protocol. They can put out a crappy game
> and we can rip it to shreds, but if we write a crappy review, they
> generally don't have the same luxury.
Oh well, they get rich off of gamers like me, they can learn to hold it in
when somebody rips into them. It's too bad mags like CGW no longer have the
testes and/or industry clout to actually speak their minds and present REAL
reviews of products. I'd love to do a numerical analysis of the average
scores of reviews given by gaming magazines over the last decade. I'd bet
dollars to doughnuts they've risen steadily, to the point where reviewers
are afraid to slam a game unless it's a Deer Hunting Simulation.
Joel Mathis
>I can understand this. Unfortunately, I think the market itself can't
>support a "scholarly periodical" anymore.
I have to disagree. I think that given the print magazines more and
more are appearing identical to each other a magazine written like the
CGW of 1990 (not that there was anything particularly special there
compared to 1989 or 1991) would truly stand out.
>CGW has to compete with PC Gamer and the other mags, and let's face it
>-- most readers want to read about Quake 4 instead of Antietam. If CGW
>devoted more space to games like Antietam and less space to Quake 4,
>they'd find themselves losing readership and ad revenue.
That's true, on the other hand said magazine would probably achieve a
balance very quickly. Sure you loose some players by writing a real
preview of Quake 4 that does not consist of sketches and screenshots
and discusses the game in depth rather than telling you how cool it's
going to look and taking the saved pages and dedicating them to giving
a variety of games more coverage, but those people wouldn't be the
market for that gaming magazine anyways.
noman
(Jeff Green) wrote:
>Cheers everyone. Sorry for ruffling feathers. Now, send me
>those specific, constructive criticisms of the magazine, and we
>can carry on the discussion from there.......
>Jeff Green
>Computer Gaming World
Better still, pick up a CGW magazine from late 80s or early 90s.
Read the reviews like the one for Crusaders of Dark Savant,
Darklands, Eye of the Beholder 2 or even the comparatively
recent ones like EF2000.
If you can't still see where all these complaints are coming from
then I suggest you go back and read those magazines again.
A blind man from 400 yards with his back turned, can tell you
the difference in standards.
Btw, at one time, CGW used to feature on its cover the best
reviewed game of the issue. These days IIRC it's the most
hyped title (at least two years from release) which gets the
cover. I think that pretty much tells everything.
And btw, I do understand why CGW had to change or evolve but
that doesn't mean I have to like it.
My 0.02$
--
Noman
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Quatoria
jeff_...@zd.com (Jeff Green) wrote:
>I don't know about "overwhelmingly negative". I mean, Usenet itself
>is overwhelmingly negative. We get tons of positive email sent to
>*our* mailbox every day. But to say that the editors aren't concerned
>about the quality of the magazine is absolutely ludicrous and does not
>give us any credit as human beings interested in doing a good work at
>their job. I mean, come on.
Well, let's be honest. No matter how critical usenet in general is,
we're usually worse. We're *almost* the most critical pack of bastards
you'll find in a gaming group. (I say almost, because I'm certain some
of the more esoteric reality-simulator style gaming groups have cranks
worse then we, and I'm looking at you when I say this, fight-sim)
Years of absolutely gawdawful brain dead psudo-strategy pablum has
soured our perspective on the industry, despite the blissful enjoyment
of the occasional wonderful game. Hell, the fact that most of us seem
genuinely surprised when we really DO enjoy a strategy game, I think,
is a pretty grim (if accurate) assessment of our mindset.
adamaant
it! Been subscribing for a couple years, and they have the best
info on online games IMHO.
Adamaant
Jeff Green
<no_m_an...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>Better still, pick up a CGW magazine from late 80s or early 90s.
>Read the reviews like the one for Crusaders of Dark Savant,
>Darklands, Eye of the Beholder 2 or even the comparatively
>recent ones like EF2000.
>
>If you can't still see where all these complaints are coming from
>then I suggest you go back and read those magazines again.
Why don't you give me some specific reviews/writers that have made you
unhappy? Many of our freelancers are ones that were writing for us
back in the glory days you're talking about. Some of those reviews
you mention were great, and some were hack jobs, even back then. It's
a writer by writer, case by case thing. Let's not just put on
rose-colored glasses about the past.
I'll still put our reviews up against anyone's in the business.
>Btw, at one time, CGW used to feature on its cover the best
>reviewed game of the issue. These days IIRC it's the most
>hyped title (at least two years from release) which gets the
>cover. I think that pretty much tells everything.
Our last two covers are for The Sims (a game already out when we wrote
the story) and Diablo 2 (a game about to ship). So much for that
theory.
>And btw, I do understand why CGW had to change or evolve but
>that doesn't mean I have to like it.
I hear you. Reality bites. But we're still trying as hard as we can.
Anyone who says differently doesn't know anything about those of us
who work here.
>My 0.02$
>--
I appreciate it. Thanks.
Jeff Green
Mathis) wrote:
>Rumor has it that jeff_...@zd.com (Jeff Green) wrote:
>
>>*sigh*. Anyone want to have a real discussion about the gaming
>>magazine business? What an utterly depressing day.
>
>How about this: who (beyond the nebulous "gamers") is CGW's target
>audience at this point? The appearance is that CGW has been going for
>a younger and younger audience (though it does seem to have have
>leveled out at this point) and I'm wondering who you're after. High
>schoolers? College kids? Adult professionals? Gen-X'ers?
>
>How do allocate the ammount of space to reviews? I hate it when I see
>a four or five star reviewed title get two paragraphs (the Rising Sun
>review in the most recent issue is a good example of this problem.
>Though it had a full page review it was three paragraphs and some huge
>screenshots) as I find that is no where near enough information to
>tell me whether or not the game is worth my interest. It's been
>stated before that you can't have full reviews of every game, but I
>would think the highly rated games at least deserve some space to try
>to sell the reader on why the game is so good.
>
>How's that for you?
>
Those are good ones!
In terms of our target audience: it's *roughly* the 18-30, range.
Which, of course, as a 38-year-old, I know myself is not exactly one
coherent group, right? And every single day we get letters from
people ranging from age 12 to 80. So it's hard to aim at a particular
group, when we know there are LOTS of people reading us. But the
main aim is at your last three guesses: college kids, adult
professionals, and Gen-Xers---and mostly guys, too, unfortunately.
But that's a general industry problem.
How much space to allocate to a review? Well, ideally, yeah, it's
like you said: the really good games should get the most space
(though we might make an exception there on expansion packs). And we
also like to give more space to high-profile games that suck, so we
can explain why they tanked.
But as everyone here knows, we've had seriously horrendous page-count
problems, which limits our options. I'm not making excuses--it's a
reality. We only get as many pages as Ziff says we get. And every
month we have, I dunno, 20+ games at least to review. We have to go
through a horrendous, depressing cutting process every month these
days where we try to balance quantity of reviews with amount of space
allocated. It's a no-win situation that we try our best every month
to win, using our collective judgment. We're not always right, we
know. I'll tell you one thing though. If the *editors* had *their*
way, every single review would be at least 3 pages. That's what I'd
like people on Usenet to keep in mind. We love games and we love
writing about them, and we could blab on about every game forever, if
we had the space. But we only have what we're told we have, and we try
to do the best we can under those conditions. It's a finite page
count. We can't "just add more" just because we want to. Anyhoo....I
hope this helps a little.
Jeff Green
wrote:
>
>
>In terms of our target audience: it's *roughly* the 18-30, range.
>Which, of course, as a 38-year-old, I know myself is not exactly one
>coherent group, right?
oops--one correction. I should have said 18-35 as the target
audience. Now I'm going home.
Cassandra
> professionals, and Gen-Xers---and mostly guys, too, unfortunately.
> But that's a general industry problem.
Why not buck the trend and start doing some changing within the industry?
I'm sure you are aware that approximately 52% of the population are
women, and according to the latest study published by the IDSA, 42% of
gamers are women. That's a large audience that is being neglected. By
making a magazine more attractive to women, think of the money you could
be bringing in! And that's not to say that the magazine needs to be
turned into Cosmopolitan Gamers, but less sexist, less male-oriented.
There's an awful lot of us out here that have money to spend, if only we
had something to spend it on. <G>
--
Cassandra
Managing Editor
Cracked Nuts
www.crackednuts.net
Tom Chick
(Cassandra) wrote:
>In article <38ff85d9....@news.zd.com>, jeff_...@zd.com says...
>> professionals, and Gen-Xers---and mostly guys, too, unfortunately.
>> But that's a general industry problem.
>
>Why not buck the trend and start doing some changing within the industry?
>I'm sure you are aware that approximately 52% of the population are
>women, and according to the latest study published by the IDSA, 42% of
>gamers are women.
Cassandra,
You might want to take a look at the methodology behind the ISDA
coming up with the 42% figure. I remember being pretty surprised when
it came out. But if you look a bit deeper into how they came up with
that number, it doesn't hold up. For instance, they cite the
demographics of people who *purchased* games, which takes into account
mothers buying Soul Caliber for their eleven year old sons and
housefraus at Wal-Mart picking up Deer Hunter for their husbands.
They also included stuff like card games on MSN and I believe even
bingo sites, which certainly include more womean but aren't the sort
of computer games covered by the sorts of pubs we're talking about
here.
While I'd love to see more women involved in this hobby, computer
gaming as we know it on the cspig.* groups is nowhere near 42% female.
noman
(Jeff Green) wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:23:14 -0700, noman
><no_m_an...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Better still, pick up a CGW magazine from late 80s or early
>>If you can't still see where all these complaints are coming
>>from then I suggest you go back and read those magazines again.
>
>Why don't you give me some specific reviews/writers that have
>made you unhappy? Many of our freelancers are ones that were
>writing for us back in the glory days you're talking about.
>Some of those reviews you mention were great, and some were
>hack jobs, even back then. It's a writer by writer, case by
>case thing. Let's not just put on rose-colored glasses about
>the past.
I was talking about the magazine's direction on the whole, not
individual writer by writer thing.
>>Btw, at one time, CGW used to feature on its cover the best
>>reviewed game of the issue. These days IIRC it's the most
>>hyped title (at least two years from release) which gets the
>>cover. I think that pretty much tells everything.
>
>Our last two covers are for The Sims (a game already out when we
>wrote the story) and Diablo 2 (a game about to ship). So much
>for that theory.
Well, I'd never give an upcoming Blizzard game "about to ship"
label :) but seriously, my point was about, featuring on the
cover a yet to be released game and not giving due respects to
the titles which got really high review marks. I wonder which
title got the best review in the issue with the DiabloII cover.
Since I am not a CGW subscriber anymore, it's hard for me to
come up with the covers from the last 12 months, and what games
they featured, but I do see them at newsstand to have noticed
that. I'd consider the covers you mentioned as rare exceptions.
I am not suggesting anything here besides the point that CGW
looks to have different priorities (targetted audience) these
days and the 'previewed title on cover which may get panned
later' approach is just one indication.
Like Joel Mathis asked you, what purpose does an extremely
short review of a game like Rising Sun (which got great ratings)
serve ?
>>And btw, I do understand why CGW had to change or evolve but
>>that doesn't mean I have to like it.
>
>I hear you. Reality bites. But we're still trying as hard as
>we can. Anyone who says differently doesn't know anything about
>those of us who work here.
That, I hope, most of us here have no doubts about.
Good luck.
--
Noman
Cassandra
loud.com says...
> have little control over your own destiny. It's fairly obvious that the
> future of "gaming journalism" (if there *is* such a thing, anymore) is
> online. It's free, it's faster, and frankly, I trust the average gamer's
> opinion (well, maybe when there's a sampled average of that opinion =) than
> the views of a "gaming journalist". It's the same reason I'd rather ask a
Just out of curiosity, how do you differentiate the two? This isn't a
troll, I sincerely would like to know. What, in your opinion, is the
difference between the average gamer and a gaming journalist, and how can
you tell the difference. If someone is a long time gamer whose opinions
you value, then they become a journalist, does that put them in the
latter category or do they still qualify as an average gamer? I've heard
this type of comment before and I'm just wondering how it works.
Geoff Black
Jeffrey Morris <jmo...@firaxis.com> wrote
<snip>
> that pretty
> much leaves PC Gamer as the premier dedicated computer game magazine.
> Thankfully, they're head and shoulders above the competition (online or
> off).
<Snip>
Please tell me you are joking. PC Gamer is the *premier* gaming magazine?
Well then, I guess that the thought expressed earlier in this tread that the
entire computer game magazine industry is headed into the toilet must be
right, since (IMO) PC Lamer is already there.
...But then that is going to leave me with the dilemma of what to read when
I'm on the toilet, it is a bit hard to cart my computer in there.
Geoffrey
Cassandra
tomc...@cutthispartout.primenet.com says...
> While I'd love to see more women involved in this hobby, computer
> gaming as we know it on the cspig.* groups is nowhere near 42% female.
True, but csipg.* groups aren't accurately representative of gamers in
general, either. There are vast numbers of gamers who either have no idea
of the existence of Usenet or have no desire to partake of Usenet's
offerings. ;) You have to admit, while Usenet is a great place to get
help for a game you may be stuck on, its not exactly the ideal place if
one wishes to have intelligent, non-flame conversations. The volitile
nature of Usenet has a tendency to drive people of both sexes away -
people who are avid gamers and very knowledgeable but who have a low
tolerance for stupidity. :)
Not to get off on a feminazi crusade here, but the industry as a whole is
hostile towards women in just about every way. From the extremely sexist
portrayal of female characters in games, to blatantly male-oriented
marketing, to being ignored in computer stores.
Last fall, my husband gave me the choice between some nice new jewelry or
a new 19" monitor for my computer for my birthday. While I love jewelry
as much as the next woman, even though we can rarely afford anything
good, I chose the monitor knowing that I'd get more use out of it. :) So
off we go to Best Buy so I can replace my crappy monitor that's backlit
with a candle.
After staring at the floor models for awhile, comparing the various
specs, I finally settle on a really nice one. Time to find a salesman so
we can pay for it and I can go home and make real use of my TNT2 card,
eh? We stand around the counter for about 15 minutes before someone
notices us and comes over. He stands on my right, my husband stands on
my left. This toad then proceeds to lean ACROSS me and ask my husband
how he can be of service. I very loudly proclaim to my husband, "I must
be invisible again today." My husband informs the pencil-necked geek
that his wife is interested in purchasing a monitor, at which point the
geek replies, again to my husband, "which one do you want?" At no time
during the entire transaction does the mentally-challenged sales clerk
ever acknowledge my existence. If it weren't for the fact that its just
about the only store in town that has monitors at a decent price, I would
probably have smacked him and walked out.
Unfortunately, that's not a solitary experience for me, and I'm sure
other women can give you the same type of story. We regularly peruse the
shelves at Software, Etc., and Cabbages for items of interest. I can't
think of one time in the last 8 years that a sales clerk ever came up and
asked me if I needed help, but they always ask my husband (and I've
noticed they do it with other male customers) as soon as we walk in the
door, even giving him a nice "hello." I've come to the conclusion that
this MUST be because men are intellectually inferior to women and,
therefore, need more assistance than we do. :p
Okay, enough of my daily diatribe. :) Just to sum things up, I think
more women would play if the environment weren't so hostile towards us. I
play a couple of online games and I get one of two reactions -- either
I'm ignored, written off as worthless, or I'm hit on (usually after the
requisite "Are you really a girl in real life?").
(BTW, I am ecstatic that PC Accelerator is dead. I hope it was an
extremely violent and nasty death, if that's at all possible for a rag of
a magazine. <G> Their mysogynistic drivel was sickening.)
Jeff Green
The Masked Debator <sa...@out-loud.com> wrote in message
news:BwOL4.223004$Hq3.5...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> Jeff Green <jeff_...@zd.com> wrote in message
itself.
> Yes, I read it, and bashing U9 was such an incredibly easy target, I mean,
> there was NO question in ANYONE'S mind with that game. This is exactly
what
> I was talking about. Every now and then there is the token "Why was this
> game even published?!?" review.. but those seem conspicously paced and
tend
> to balance the usual "the game was really bad but we can't really say
that"
> review.
Remember what I said about there being no winning on Usenet? This is exactly
what I mean. Thanks for providing the perfect example.
> For me to do that, I'd need a formidable collection of CGW issues, which
> I've readily (and proudly) admitted I don't. The task would be easier,
had
> CGW an actual website worth its salt, but we've already covered that
ground.
> I'll let you know if I can find a couple of used copies at a few friends'
> houses. =)
Yeah. Uh-huh. I'm sure you'll get right on that, huh?
> Oh give it up. Your melodrama is so uninspiring.
Eh?
> The problem is that
> "gamers" will never be able to have a "real discussion" with people like
> yourself, because you all can't help but pull the rank card when things
> start getting critical. If I had a dime for every condescending response
to
> the "average gamer" who wrote something even slightly critical of the
gaming
> rags.. well, you know the rest.
I'm not pulling a rank card in the slightest. If you had any idea who you
were talking to you, you would know how laughable that is. I'm just another
gamer on this group, who happens to work at a magazine that you seem to get
a kick out of trashing. I have real discussions ALL the time about games,
the industry, and our magazine---but, ironically, YOU ARE THE ONE who
doesn't want to have a serious discussion!!! See your next quote:
>
> You actually *MADE* my day by totally biting on my troll. Seriously, it
was
> priceless that you actually tried to reason with that post. You ever
think
> about running for political office?
Speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Cheers.
>
>
>
>
>
Jeff Green
> discussions actually play the games in question before trying to figure
> out if the game warrants the assigned rating? Or are they merely going
> by what the "buzz" says and what the reviewer wrote?
It's different game by game. Obviously every editor can't play every single
game--so that's just flat out not possible. It's the ideal situation, but
not possible. But at the very least the genre editor puts in some time with
the game, and unless we're talking about a complete piece of shit it's
almost guaranteed that at *least* one other editor has played it. We'll also
solicit opinions from our regular pool of freelancers, like Desslock.
"Buzz" plays only a *tiny* role in the discussion. If a reviewer hates a
game that everyone else in the world seems to like, then we probably have a
problem. But that happens only rarely. Ideally, we pick someone to review
the game who is going to have a clue what they're talking about. Of course,
some people on this thread seem to think we don't even do that, so what do I
know.
At times it really is just a reality check. If the editors haven't played
the game, they can at least weigh in on whether the arguments presented in
the text match the score. It is rare for us to change a score, and if we
do, it's extremely rare for us to change it more than 1/2 star in either
direction. If it needed a bigger change than that, then that means there
was a problem with the review itself---and it would go back to the writer
for more discussion.
> Ya see, I don't normally use ratings in our reviews as I find them to be
> entirely subjective, much more so than the reviews themselves. At least
> in a review, you can explain what it was that you liked or didn't like
> about a game, as well as describe what the game was like. That's what we
> try to do anyway. So how does one come up with a score of 76%? What
> exactly does that mean in actual words? :)
Yep. I know. I can't speak for the mags who use percentages, and for the
life of me, I don't know how I'd possibly use that scale myself. How do you
decide whether some piece of crap is a 23%, 32% or a 12%? I can never
understand that. The scale we have to work on at CGW is 5 stars, with
1/2's. What the scores mean in words is mostly perception. A 5 speaks for
itself. So does a 1. A 4.5 is near perfect, etc. Look, frankly I'd love it
if we could just run reviews like the New York Review of Books--5,000 words
or so and no score. But it's just the way things are now, just like they
are with every dang movie review in every publication....
> Umm.. correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't the novacaine allow you to
> bite your lip even better, since there shouldn't be any feeling in it? Or
> were you just afraid that, because you had no feeling, you might actually
> bite THROUGH your lip? lol
lol. Yeah, it's the latter. I was actually warned very strictly by the
dentist today..."do NOT bite your lip, because you'll be tempted!" Little
did he know I had a troll awaiting me today!
Cassandra
jeff_...@ziffdavis.com says...
> Look, frankly I'd love it
> if we could just run reviews like the New York Review of Books--5,000 words
> or so and no score. But it's just the way things are now, just like they
> are with every dang movie review in every publication....
Hmm... but if you notice, one of the main complaints on this thread about
current gaming mags is that they are all the same. They're all pretty
much carbon copies of each other. So buck the trend and get rid of the
stars! :) Yes, I know, readers are often lazy and don't want to read the
article, they want to know the bottom line by glancing at some little
graphical representation that is supposed to encompass the entire review.
We've run into the same problem ourselves. But I think what we're going
to do is a two thumbs up kind of thing. Two thumbs up is its good, we
recommend it. Two thumbs down is avoid it at all cost. One of each is it
isn't bad, might wanna wait til it hits the bargain bin though. :)
Jeff Green
Cassandra <cassandr...@crackednuts.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.13699152f...@news.mil.ameritech.net...
> Hmm... but if you notice, one of the main complaints on this thread about
> current gaming mags is that they are all the same. They're all pretty
> much carbon copies of each other. So buck the trend and get rid of the
> stars! :) Yes, I know, readers are often lazy and don't want to read the
> article, they want to know the bottom line by glancing at some little
> graphical representation that is supposed to encompass the entire review.
> We've run into the same problem ourselves. But I think what we're going
> to do is a two thumbs up kind of thing. Two thumbs up is its good, we
> recommend it. Two thumbs down is avoid it at all cost. One of each is it
> isn't bad, might wanna wait til it hits the bargain bin though. :)
Yeah, it's discussed occasionally. But if we dropped the stars, you know
what would happen? The complaint letters would start coming in that we did
*that*. A lot of people---not the Usenet crowd, apparently--rely on those
dang things. And you know who else likes 'em? All the game companies. Cuz
when they get lots of stars, or high percentages, they can plaster 'em on
their ads and boxes. Again, as with movies, it makes it easy for lots of
people to see what the deal is without having to invest any real effort.
I'm not saying this is a good thing. But I made my peace with the ratings
long ago. Now, as an editor, I just try to do a good job of making sure we
give the *right* scores.
I think the real solution (since I don't think the ratings are gonna go
away) is just to have longer reviews again. That's all the editors want at
the magazine. More space to discuss the game. Our page count went up for
our June issue (the Diablo 2 issue just shipping), and it was heartening to
us. I guess we'll see.
Jeff Green
> In article <38ff85d9....@news.zd.com>, jeff_...@zd.com says...
> > professionals, and Gen-Xers---and mostly guys, too, unfortunately.
> > But that's a general industry problem.
>
> Why not buck the trend and start doing some changing within the industry?
> I'm sure you are aware that approximately 52% of the population are
> women, and according to the latest study published by the IDSA, 42% of
> making a magazine more attractive to women, think of the money you could
> be bringing in! And that's not to say that the magazine needs to be
> turned into Cosmopolitan Gamers, but less sexist, less male-oriented.
> There's an awful lot of us out here that have money to spend, if only we
> had something to spend it on. <G>
>
Cassandra, I agree with you 100 percent. But I do think Tom Chick is right
in his post that that 42% figure is deceptive. I dunno. Every time we do
reader studies, it always turns out that it's almost ALL guys who read these
magazines (like, above 95%). But on the other hand, it could be a
chicken-and-egg thing too, since we do, as you've said, pretty much cater to
men. I really want to see it change. And I'd love to have more female
writers do some reviews for us. That's a hint.
Bob Perez
that the former has broader appeal than the latter. My own disenchantment
with CGW has more to do with my observation that the writing in general has
deteriorated. I used to feel like I was reading the more highbrow
publication when reading CGW, that Gamer, while entertaining, was more of a
light read.
If you think that readers don't appreciate well-written critical analysis
then I think you underestimate your market. Rolling Stone magazine has done
quite well turning a critical eye toward popular entertainment and at one
time I thought CGW was headed in the same direction. I don't know if it was
the departure of Johnny Wilson or what, but it's definitely declined since
then and followed the more formulaic PC Gamer approach. Jeff Green is the
exception. I used to think he was just a goofoff (albeit a very funny one)
but his open letter to Richard Garriot was a classic and was the first thing
I'd read in CGW for ages that made me feel good about reading it. Give the
guy more ink.
BP
"Mark Asher" <ma...@nospamcdmnet.com> wrote in message
news:VOKL4.631$Xc.2...@news1.primary.net...
>
> Jeffrey Morris <jmo...@firaxis.com> wrote in message
> news:38ff4...@news.kivex.com...
> >
> > It was the Wargame of the Year award for Antietam that pushed me
over
> > the edge ;). To clarify my point, it's just that CGW's focus has shifted
> > away from the more scholarly periodical I fell in love with.
>
> I can understand this. Unfortunately, I think the market itself can't
> support a "scholarly periodical" anymore. CGW has to compete with PC Gamer
> and the other mags, and let's face it -- most readers want to read about
> Quake 4 instead of Antietam. If CGW devoted more space to games like
> Antietam and less space to Quake 4, they'd find themselves losing
readership
> and ad revenue.
>
Bob Perez
"Jeff Morris" <jmo...@firaxis.com> wrote in message
news:9nNL4.17521$0o4.1...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
> And what about an New England Journal of Medicine for computer gamers?
> Could somebody establish a successful, intellectual PC gaming rag?
I think you could have asked that same question about rock and roll back in
the early days of rock and roll teen magazines. Rolling Stone has achieved a
precedent for a successful intellectual rock and roll magazine and I think
the same is possible for our industry over time. Much smaller market, but
it's growing and the audience isn't getting any younger.
BP
Bob Perez
> You might want to take a look at the methodology behind the ISDA
> coming up with the 42% figure.
Actually, you might want to go back and check your figures yourself. The
IDSA report discussed both purchasers *and* players. The purchaser figures
were much higher, on the order of 51% for PC games (that accounts for your
Deer Hunter buyer for the hubby) and something less for console games. But
the *player* figures were actually 43%, not 42.
It's a common misconception that gaming is only for guys. Not surprisingly,
it's mostly the guys who keep saying this. ;-> I know in my household it's
currently running 3 to 2 against the guys...
BP
Tom Chick
(Cassandra) wrote:
>In article <Ibf=OOjrbA6t4S0v...@4ax.com>,
>tomc...@cutthispartout.primenet.com says...
>> While I'd love to see more women involved in this hobby, computer
>> gaming as we know it on the cspig.* groups is nowhere near 42% female.
>
>True, but csipg.* groups aren't accurately representative of gamers in
>general, either.
I didn't mean to imply that. I only meant that the kind of games we
talk about on csipg.* are not skewing 42% female. Of course, if you
include Spades on the Microsoft Gaming Zone, Solitaire for Windows,
and Tetris, you're going to get closer to that figure. But if you go
to EB and stand in front of the new releases, the games you see are
not being played by that many women.
>Not to get off on a feminazi crusade here, but the industry as a whole is
>hostile towards women in just about every way. From the extremely sexist
>portrayal of female characters in games, to blatantly male-oriented
>marketing, to being ignored in computer stores.
It's a bit unfair for you to level that charge at computer gaming
along. Your anecdote about buying a monitor shows that this sort of
patronizing "little lady" mentality exists in the entire computer
industry. It also exists in other industries, such as hi-fidelity
audio equipment, automotive sales, and at hardware stores. The games
business isn't unique in that regard.
>I can't
>think of one time in the last 8 years that a sales clerk ever came up and
>asked me if I needed help, but they always ask my husband (and I've
>noticed they do it with other male customers) as soon as we walk in the
>door, even giving him a nice "hello." I've come to the conclusion that
>this MUST be because men are intellectually inferior to women and,
>therefore, need more assistance than we do. :p
Duh. :)
>Okay, enough of my daily diatribe. :) Just to sum things up, I think
>more women would play if the environment weren't so hostile towards us. I
>play a couple of online games and I get one of two reactions -- either
>I'm ignored, written off as worthless, or I'm hit on (usually after the
>requisite "Are you really a girl in real life?").
Which further reinforces my point that any estimate that this hobby
consists of 42% women is *way* off!
I wish I could remember where I've seen these, but there are some
fascinating studies about the way little boys play as opposed to the
way little girls play. Their play modes are markedly different. I
think this carries into our preferences for recreation when we get
older. I don't think the computer gaming industry is geared towards
what most women like. I realize this is a broad generalization (no
pun intended...), but women are just as free to buy computer games as
men are. But for whatever reason, they simply don't.
>(BTW, I am ecstatic that PC Accelerator is dead. I hope it was an
>extremely violent and nasty death, if that's at all possible for a rag of
>a magazine. <G> Their mysogynistic drivel was sickening.)
If it weren't impolitic for me to say so (writing, as I do, for both
their competitors *and* their publisher), I might be inclined to say I
agree. :)
Tom Chick
<b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>
>"Tom Chick" <tomc...@cutthispartout.primenet.com> wrote in message
>news:Ibf=OOjrbA6t4S0v...@4ax.com...
>> You might want to take a look at the methodology behind the ISDA
>> coming up with the 42% figure.
>
>Actually, you might want to go back and check your figures yourself. The
>IDSA report discussed both purchasers *and* players. The purchaser figures
>were much higher, on the order of 51% for PC games (that accounts for your
>Deer Hunter buyer for the hubby) and something less for console games. But
>the *player* figures were actually 43%, not 42.
I don't recall the exact figures. I looked at the study a few months
ago and considered writing up a criticism of it, but the IDSA folks
didn't answer my emails asking for more information on their
methodology.
Regardless, the fact remains that the kind of titles they include to
arrive at the 42/43% figure are misleading. 42/43% of the people
playing Quake 3 are not women. 42/43% of the people playing Starcraft
are not women. 42/43% of the people playing Grand Prix Legeneds are
not women. 42/43% of the people playing Everquest are not women.
Take the PC Data Top Ten list. Please. (Can I get a rimshot?) I
have no problem believing that most of those games are *bought* by
women for their children and husbands; women are traditionally the
movers of disposible income. If you want to lump all those PC Data
Top Ten games together, you might even get closer to the 42/43% figure
for women actually *playing* those games. Consider, for instance,
that there are always a couple of Barbie titles and "gender neutral"
stuff like Myst and The Sims on there. But you have to include stuff
like Bingo.com where Aunts Sally, Eunice, and Nora meet every night to
inflate the number to 42/43%.
>It's a common misconception that gaming is only for guys.
No one's saying it's "only for guys". But people like Cassandra,
Meghan Rodberg, Scorpia, Cindy Vanous, and Killcreek are a slim
minority. The kind of games that we play and talk about on csipg.*
are very much toys for boys.
>Not surprisingly,
>it's mostly the guys who keep saying this. ;-> I know in my household it's
>currently running 3 to 2 against the guys...
Anecdotal, Mr. Perez, but an amusing picture nonetheless. How's that
"tyranny of the majority" treating you these days? :)
Tom Chick
<sa...@out-loud.com> wrote:
>I have no problems with serious and spirited debate, but you seem much too
>uptight to actually have an interesting discussion with... maybe a valium or
>some yoga classes would help?
Are you still here?
If you don't mind, the rest of us are having a conversation. Could
you be so kind as to wander off to another thread where it's easier to
ignore you? Thanks a bunch.
Tom Chick
(Jonathan K.) wrote:
>That was always my complaint. I got heartily sick of PC Gamer
>reviews, in particular, saying:
>
>Pros: stunning graphics, great sound, good intro
>Cons: buggy as Alaska in June, online play doesn't work, dull
>gameplay, tired game engine
>
>Rating: 79%
I think they have a macro that pastes this at the top of every review.
:)
>It seems to me that the average game should be awarded 50%. If you
>did up the averages, for all the mags, I bet you'd find that the
>average is about 70% or its equivalent.
I've long hated the 1-10 system or any variation thereof. The 1-100
ratings are the most insidious and useless version of the 1-10
systems.
Many of the editors I write for who use 1-10 ranges insist that they
want me to give average games a 5. Unfortunately, almost *no* writers
do this! Instead, crappy games get a 6, good games get an 8, and
really good games get a 9. Everything else gets a 7. They might as
well retire 1-5 and keep the 10 in a closet somewhere so it doesn't
get in the way.
I'll take a five star system, or even Daily Radar's Hit/Miss, any day
of the week.
The Masked Debator
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 23:39:34 GMT, "The Masked Debator"
> <sa...@out-loud.com> wrote:
>
> >First of all, if CGW is so great,
> >why the fuck are they riding Gamespot's website? I'll tell you why,
because
> >they're going down hard and they know it. You can talk all you want
about
> >how the PC market is shrinking, but the bottom line is, CGW has nowhere
near
> >the clout it once did in the industry. If it did, Gamespot would be part
of
> >CGW.com (or whatever) instead of the reverse.
>
> Oh BROTHER!!! You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking
> about. See, this is why Usenet is largely a waste of time to game
> editors. Here's a history lesson for you. Ziff Davis bought Computer
> Gaming World, an independent mag, years ago. Then, in a separate
> deal, years after that, they bought Gamespot. Ziff-Davis then TOLD
> CGW--"here's your gaming website. We just bought you one." We are
> not "riding" their website. They ARE our website. We have never had
> one iota of control over that fact or over the content itself.
> >
Well, since you bit at the troll squarely (I really didn't expect you to,
seriously).. let me just say your answer sums it right up. It doesn't
MATTER to the average PC game magazine reader who "owns" own. The
PERCEPTION is that you guys are small time because you "share" a site with
Gamespot. As equally puzzling is the fact that you claim "they ARE our
website" and then you turn around and say "We have never had one iota of
control..." What you really meant to say was that ZD runs you both and you
have little control over your own destiny. It's fairly obvious that the
future of "gaming journalism" (if there *is* such a thing, anymore) is
online. It's free, it's faster, and frankly, I trust the average gamer's
opinion (well, maybe when there's a sampled average of that opinion =) than
the views of a "gaming journalist". It's the same reason I'd rather ask a
friend about a movie I want to see than listen to Roger Ebert. Ebert has a
vested interest in promoting certain films, besides which, he's looking for
a lot of things that don't matter to the average film-goer. CGW may have
once held the same type of influence on PC gaming that Ebert does with
films, and I'm sure you guys fancy that you still pack that kind of wallop,
but I would seriously challenge the truth of that idea.
> >No shit, pal! I've got a news flash for you -- CGW will NEVER give
Firaxis
> >a bad rap, because they wouldn't want to piss off Sid Meier. They
wouldn't
> >DARE threaten their ability to get interviews and big special features.
I
> >played the Antietam demo, and it was OK, but it's obvious Sid's name
> >influenced the CGW crew's review of the game...
> >
> >So fess 'up, CGW.. who else is on the "don't fuck with" list? Some
gamers
> >are always accusing magazines of being paid off by developers, but you
know
> >what? I don't think game companies even HAVE to pay. I think most
gaming
> >mags are running so scared and are so subservient -- they don't want to
bite
> >the hand that feeds their circulation, so to speak. Plus, online gaming
> >sites deliver the news faster and for free, with interactive features and
> >lower operating costs. Translation: CGW is gasping its dying breath.
>
> Jeezus. Again, a sterling example of why editors like myself are
> hesitant to even spend any time here. Did you read my column about
> Ultima 9 and Garriott? I raked them over the coals. That's one measly
> example. I'll give you 100 if you want. Have you read any of the
> TONS of 1 or 2 star reviews of games from major game companies that
> appear in our magazine every month? Do you even read the magazine?
> CGW is not remotely gasping its dying breath. Sorry. You're stuck
> with us. You don't have to read it. But I hope you do. Sincerely.
Yes, I read it, and bashing U9 was such an incredibly easy target, I mean,
there was NO question in ANYONE'S mind with that game. This is exactly what
I was talking about. Every now and then there is the token "Why was this
game even published?!?" review.. but those seem conspicously paced and tend
to balance the usual "the game was really bad but we can't really say that"
review.
Plus, Origin isn't even on par with Firaxis when it comes to industry clout.
I could be wrong, but Origin's best days are behind it, and even though
their success with UO was/is remarkable, they're hardly an industry
powerhouse anymore.
I do read CGW, though I wouldn't ever consider being a subscriber. Whether
or not CGW is close to death in terms of circulation is questionable. I
think the point, for many of us here, is that the magazine that used to be
the vanguard of computer gaming journalism has been reduced to a fraction of
its former glory. Maybe the pressure to compete with the kiddie mags took
its toll, more likely it's the rapid succession of 'net sites, stealing the
thunder from under you.
> >
> >Oh well, they get rich off of gamers like me, they can learn to hold it
in
> >when somebody rips into them. It's too bad mags like CGW no longer have
the
> >testes and/or industry clout to actually speak their minds and present
REAL
> >reviews of products. I'd love to do a numerical analysis of the average
> >scores of reviews given by gaming magazines over the last decade. I'd
bet
> >dollars to doughnuts they've risen steadily, to the point where reviewers
> >are afraid to slam a game unless it's a Deer Hunting Simulation.
> >
> Again, utterly incorrect. Go ahead and do your statistical analysis
> (of CGW--not other magazines), and then come back here and report your
> findings. I dare you.
For me to do that, I'd need a formidable collection of CGW issues, which
I've readily (and proudly) admitted I don't. The task would be easier, had
CGW an actual website worth its salt, but we've already covered that ground.
I'll let you know if I can find a couple of used copies at a few friends'
houses. =)
>
> *sigh*. Anyone want to have a real discussion about the gaming
> magazine business? What an utterly depressing day.
Oh give it up. Your melodrama is so uninspiring. The problem is that
"gamers" will never be able to have a "real discussion" with people like
yourself, because you all can't help but pull the rank card when things
start getting critical. If I had a dime for every condescending response to
the "average gamer" who wrote something even slightly critical of the gaming
rags.. well, you know the rest.
You actually *MADE* my day by totally biting on my troll. Seriously, it was
priceless that you actually tried to reason with that post. You ever think
about running for political office?
TMD
derek_d.
<john...@ufl.edu> wrote:
>In article <38ff0...@news.kivex.com>, jmo...@firaxis.com says...
>> Like many things in this business, the good are
>> often buried by the mediocre.
>>
>> Jeff Morris
>> Firaxis Games
>>
>>
>Thankfully the market has spoken and burried the mediocre. I'm afraid
>that there just weren't enough people that got their inane humor. I
>visit the Old Man Murray site all of the time, but I couldn't read
>through a whole issue of PC Accelerator.
No shit...I for one, smiled when I heard the news. I never figured out
what made this mag so popular. Hey i'm as loose as any guy, but this
mag was just stupid. I don't mind humor, but the constant drooling,
out-of-place pics of nude girls and the uneven jokes just didn't work
very well. Something to be said for natural selection.
~ Derek ~
The Masked Debator
> > future of "gaming journalism" (if there *is* such a thing, anymore) is
> > online. It's free, it's faster, and frankly, I trust the average
gamer's
> > opinion (well, maybe when there's a sampled average of that opinion =)
than
> > the views of a "gaming journalist". It's the same reason I'd rather ask
a
>
> troll, I sincerely would like to know. What, in your opinion, is the
> difference between the average gamer and a gaming journalist, and how can
> you tell the difference. If someone is a long time gamer whose opinions
> you value, then they become a journalist, does that put them in the
> latter category or do they still qualify as an average gamer? I've heard
> this type of comment before and I'm just wondering how it works.
All in the eyes of the beholder, I guess. I think a lot of print-magazine
reviewers consider themselves to be "journalists", whereas a good deal of
"fan" internet sites will have completely amateur reviewers who just
consider themselves hobbyists or fans. I know what you're getting at, and
having written for several internet sites, the easy answer is "it's all in
your attitude".. unfortunately I'm more inclined to use the paycheck as a
measuring stick. If you get paid, and your livelihood depends on covering
electronic entertainment, I think that makes you a "journalist", or at least
qualifies you to consider using the title. The fact that many "journalists"
know nothing about journalism is another matter entirely.
You've also got to realize any fool with a Geocities account can write some
opinions and consider himself a member of the "press". Just go to E3 and
watch the droves of fanboys who run around showing off their "press
credentials" for the fansite they made two weeks prior to the show.
TMD
The Masked Debator
One ought not to take gaming so seriously. The "I'm just a gamer who
works for a poor little magazine" defense is really tired, too. You guys
can't talk about how much pull CGW has with every game company and then turn
around and start saying "oh, I'm just a regular gamer, oh stop picking on my
magazine"... Perhaps the fact you take everything so "seriously" is the
fact that gaming is your livelihood, and hence you aren't just "a gamer"
Anyway, it sounds like your feelings are getting hurt, and this feels like
it's leading towards pointless bickering, which is only fun once, and we've
already done that..
I have no problems with serious and spirited debate, but you seem much too
uptight to actually have an interesting discussion with... maybe a valium or
some yoga classes would help?
Looking forward to having that last post quoted, as an example of why I'm
not "serious" enough to discuss gaming with you. Should be riotously
amusing.
(it's no wonder you guys didn't "get" PCXL.)
TMD
Jeff Green <jeff_...@ziffdavis.com> wrote in message
news:8dog4b$6qq$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> The Masked Debator <sa...@out-loud.com> wrote in message
> news:BwOL4.223004$Hq3.5...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > Jeff Green <jeff_...@zd.com> wrote in message
> itself.
>
> > Yes, I read it, and bashing U9 was such an incredibly easy target, I
mean,
> > there was NO question in ANYONE'S mind with that game. This is exactly
> what
> > I was talking about. Every now and then there is the token "Why was
this
> > game even published?!?" review.. but those seem conspicously paced and
> tend
> > to balance the usual "the game was really bad but we can't really say
> that"
> > review.
>
> Remember what I said about there being no winning on Usenet? This is
exactly
> what I mean. Thanks for providing the perfect example.
>
>
> > For me to do that, I'd need a formidable collection of CGW issues, which
> > I've readily (and proudly) admitted I don't. The task would be easier,
> had
> > CGW an actual website worth its salt, but we've already covered that
> ground.
> > I'll let you know if I can find a couple of used copies at a few
friends'
> > houses. =)
>
> Yeah. Uh-huh. I'm sure you'll get right on that, huh?
>
> > Oh give it up. Your melodrama is so uninspiring.
>
> Eh?
>
> > The problem is that
> > "gamers" will never be able to have a "real discussion" with people like
> > yourself, because you all can't help but pull the rank card when things
> > start getting critical. If I had a dime for every condescending
response
> to
> > the "average gamer" who wrote something even slightly critical of the
> gaming
> > rags.. well, you know the rest.
>
> I'm not pulling a rank card in the slightest. If you had any idea who you
> were talking to you, you would know how laughable that is. I'm just
another
> gamer on this group, who happens to work at a magazine that you seem to
get
> a kick out of trashing. I have real discussions ALL the time about games,
> the industry, and our magazine---but, ironically, YOU ARE THE ONE who
> doesn't want to have a serious discussion!!! See your next quote:
> >
> > You actually *MADE* my day by totally biting on my troll. Seriously, it
> was
> > priceless that you actually tried to reason with that post. You ever
> think
> > about running for political office?
>
Cassandra
loud.com says...
> All in the eyes of the beholder, I guess. I think a lot of print-magazine
> reviewers consider themselves to be "journalists", whereas a good deal of
> "fan" internet sites will have completely amateur reviewers who just
> consider themselves hobbyists or fans. I know what you're getting at, and
> having written for several internet sites, the easy answer is "it's all in
> your attitude".. unfortunately I'm more inclined to use the paycheck as a
> measuring stick. If you get paid, and your livelihood depends on covering
> electronic entertainment, I think that makes you a "journalist", or at least
> qualifies you to consider using the title. The fact that many "journalists"
> know nothing about journalism is another matter entirely.
Thanks for responding, I appreciate it. I think I understand what you
are saying, but let me ask you this: Suppose you see someone writing
reader reviews for Gamespot and you find them pretty much dead-on
accurate with how you view games. Then Gamespot hires them as
freelancers. Does the fact that they now receive a paycheck for doing the
same thing they did that you liked mean that you can't trust their
opinion anymore? What about people who get paid but who don't rely on
'big money' for their income and don't pimp their sites with offensive
amounts of advertising? Are those people as untrustworthy as someone who
is pretty obviously a corporate spokesperson? Enquiring minds want to
know! :)
I agree with you that many who call themselves journalists have no idea
what they are doing. While I may qualify under your terms as a
journalist, I still tend to think of myself as a gamer who writes
(hopefully somewhat coherently). That's not to say that I wouldn't like
my work to be taken seriously. Obviously I would. But do you have any
idea of the expense and time it takes to get a degree in journalism? ;)
Going to school part-time, which is the only way I could do it, means I
would get a BA in, oh, about 30 years or so. And who'd listen to a 60+
year old granny spout on about games without wanting to lock her up in a
padded room? LOL
> You've also got to realize any fool with a Geocities account can write some
> opinions and consider himself a member of the "press". Just go to E3 and
> watch the droves of fanboys who run around showing off their "press
> credentials" for the fansite they made two weeks prior to the show.
Its not quite that bad anymore. :) They've been cracking down a bit more,
especially this year. In order to qualify as 'online press' for E3 now,
you have to have a business license and have a reputable site (or at
least appear to be reputable <G>). Some still slip through the cracks
but its not nearly as bad now as it was a couple of years ago. BTW, my
first trip to E3 was with a press badge that I got for running a fan
site, so there. :p I've come a long way since then.
The Masked Debator
> In article <Ibf=OOjrbA6t4S0v...@4ax.com>,
> tomc...@cutthispartout.primenet.com says...
> > While I'd love to see more women involved in this hobby, computer
> > gaming as we know it on the cspig.* groups is nowhere near 42% female.
>
> True, but csipg.* groups aren't accurately representative of gamers in
> of the existence of Usenet or have no desire to partake of Usenet's
> offerings. ;) You have to admit, while Usenet is a great place to get
> help for a game you may be stuck on, its not exactly the ideal place if
> one wishes to have intelligent, non-flame conversations. The volitile
> nature of Usenet has a tendency to drive people of both sexes away -
> people who are avid gamers and very knowledgeable but who have a low
> tolerance for stupidity. :)
>
> hostile towards women in just about every way. From the extremely sexist
> portrayal of female characters in games, to blatantly male-oriented
> marketing, to being ignored in computer stores.
>
> a new 19" monitor for my computer for my birthday. While I love jewelry
> as much as the next woman, even though we can rarely afford anything
> good, I chose the monitor knowing that I'd get more use out of it. :) So
> off we go to Best Buy so I can replace my crappy monitor that's backlit
> with a candle.
>
> After staring at the floor models for awhile, comparing the various
> specs, I finally settle on a really nice one. Time to find a salesman so
> we can pay for it and I can go home and make real use of my TNT2 card,
> eh? We stand around the counter for about 15 minutes before someone
> notices us and comes over. He stands on my right, my husband stands on
> my left. This toad then proceeds to lean ACROSS me and ask my husband
> how he can be of service. I very loudly proclaim to my husband, "I must
> be invisible again today." My husband informs the pencil-necked geek
> that his wife is interested in purchasing a monitor, at which point the
> geek replies, again to my husband, "which one do you want?" At no time
> during the entire transaction does the mentally-challenged sales clerk
> ever acknowledge my existence. If it weren't for the fact that its just
> about the only store in town that has monitors at a decent price, I would
> probably have smacked him and walked out.
<snip>
Cassandra,
Your experience is a prime example of why I refuse to buy anything from Best
Buy. Their name apparently doesn't also mean 'Best Service' (or, "Any
Service"). I've never seen a retail chain with a more incredulously
incompetent staff. Their policies are draconian and so non-customer
friendly, it's almost as if they figure "hey, our prices are low, so we'll
just do whatever we want and you'll still shop with us"..
I'm sure my lack of shopping there anymore isn't even making a pebble-sized
dent, but it sure makes me feel good to know I'll drive an hour out of my
way to AVOID that place.
In summary, I can see the problem you're alluding to, but a lot of the
burden on that one should be placed on the shoulders of that god-forsaken
Blue shitbox we call Best Buy. I know of several stores that carry similar
stock who I don't think are so ignorant and sexist.
Regards,
TMD
Jonathan K.
>Sure, I'm rather curious as to why so many magazine reviews completely
>trash a game, then award it 4 out of 5 stars or 89 out of 100. :) That's
>the sole reason I stopped buying print game mags. The only time I ever
>buy one now is if there's a particular interview or coverage of a
>particular game (usually pre-release) that I'm interested in.
That was always my complaint. I got heartily sick of PC Gamer
reviews, in particular, saying:
Pros: stunning graphics, great sound, good intro
Cons: buggy as Alaska in June, online play doesn't work, dull
gameplay, tired game engine
Rating: 79%
It seems to me that the average game should be awarded 50%. If you
did up the averages, for all the mags, I bet you'd find that the
average is about 70% or its equivalent.
--
Jonathan K
Cassandra
loud.com says...
> I have no problems with serious and spirited debate, but you seem much too
> uptight to actually have an interesting discussion with... maybe a valium or
> some yoga classes would help?
Pardon the intrusion, I know that you addressed that to Jeff, but in his
defense, let me point out that its somewhat like having a sibling. When
you have a brother or sister, you tend to smack them around a bit and
make fun of them, right? Its normal sibling behavior. But when someone
outside of the family does it, you get defensive of them. If someone says
your little sister has been sleeping around, it pisses you off and you
try to retaliate and/or prove that it isn't true.
Kinda the same thing when your employer is being dissed. ;) My best
friend works at Microsoft on the Win2k performance team. I love him to
death, but everytime I say something about my damned IE crashing again,
he gets extremely defensive. Even though he knows that its a valid
complaint and that the software is buggy, and even though I've heard him
say some pretty bad things about MS himself, he still gets takes offense
and starts to go off on me. LOL
> (it's no wonder you guys didn't "get" PCXL.)
Hmm... well, I didn't "get" it. But then, I didn't want it, either. :p
Cassandra
loud.com says...
> In summary, I can see the problem you're alluding to, but a lot of the
> burden on that one should be placed on the shoulders of that god-forsaken
> Blue shitbox we call Best Buy. I know of several stores that carry similar
> stock who I don't think are so ignorant and sexist.
Oh, I'm sure there are. However, I live in a relatively small town about
the size of Mayberry. (Okay, its a little bit larger, we do have a
McDonalds.) :) For hardware, its pretty much Best Buy or pay a fortune
at Sears for a much smaller selection.
BTW, one thing I love to do is prove that I know more than the sales
clerks, which is usually the case. I was in Sears once looking around
and overheard the clerk telling a man (who obviously didn't have a clue
and was buying his first computer) that a 486 with 32mb RAM was more than
he'd ever need. This wasn't all that long ago either. So I walked up and
started talking to the man, finding out what he was planning to use it
for, etc., and recommended he buy a different system and that he run up
to the nearest large city and look around for a better deal. If looks
could kill, I'd have holes bored through my head from the lasers the
clerk was glaring my way. ROFL
Getefix
> cassandr...@crackednuts.net (Cassandra) wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity, how do you differentiate [the average gamer
> and a gaming journalist]? This isn't a troll, I sincerely would like
> to know. What, in your opinion, is the difference between the average
> gamer and a gaming journalist, and how can you tell the difference.
> If someone is a long time gamer whose opinions you value, then they
> become a journalist, does that put them in the latter category or do
> they still qualify as an average gamer? I've heard this type of
> comment before and I'm just wondering how it works.
Average Gamer: "This game is like herding cats -- it sux rocks."
Gaming Journalist: "Those with a bent towards micromanagment will revel
in the number of options for control over the numerous and varied
facets of this game."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jonathan K.
>Yep. About like the real news. There are huge, important things going on in
>the world, and we get Elian Gonzalez every night. Dan Rather was on Larry
>King last night talking about this. He stated that what sells usually wins
>out over what's important.
Interesting to hear Dan Rather agreeing with Mother Jones. Had an
interesting experience recently. Got a subscription promo mailing
from MoJo and chose to read it. It began with a description of the
current "All Elian, All The Time" fixation of the media today and then
explained where MoJo fit into the media. When they said (and I quote)
"We don't particularly care which pharmaceutical company we piss
off.", I stopped reading and got out my checkbook. They deserved my
business and would get it. I have yet to get my first issue, but if
it is anything like their website (www.motherjones.com), I can't wait.
--
Jonathan K.
Quatoria
"The Masked Debator" <sa...@out-loud.com> wrote:
>Your experience is a prime example of why I refuse to buy anything from Best
>Buy. Their name apparently doesn't also mean 'Best Service' (or, "Any
>Service"). I've never seen a retail chain with a more incredulously
>incompetent staff. Their policies are draconian and so non-customer
>friendly, it's almost as if they figure "hey, our prices are low, so we'll
>just do whatever we want and you'll still shop with us"..
Without the circular, their prices for software suck, too. With the
circular, you can just go to EB and price match... and EB tends to
have this policy, from my experience, of hiring a lot of gamers. In
most all of the EB's I've frequented, I've been able to maintain a
friendly relationship with the staff, which makes life a lot easier
when you're one day late with that return, lose the receipt, etc.
-Quatoria
--
In this unpredictable, oftentimes contentious world,
sometimes you just have to sit back, take a moment to
reflect, and say "Well, I'll be a greased Jesus!"
Quatoria
"Bob Perez" <b...@deletethis.bobperez.com> wrote:
>
>It's a common misconception that gaming is only for guys. Not surprisingly,
>it's mostly the guys who keep saying this. ;-> I know in my household it's
>currently running 3 to 2 against the guys...
Stupid guys, if they are. I've yet to meet a female player that
matched the casual brain-numbing inanity of your average 13 year old
male "kewld00d". I'm not saying they're brighter, or more capable of
gaming (or less, for that matter), but I am saying I've never observed
them behaving with the same spectacular disregard their male
counterparts show for anyone and everyone who isn't them. That alone
usually makes them a joy to play with/against.
Unfortunately, I've encountered almost no female gamers in the years
I've played FPS online (by far my most frequent online gaming). I
don't know if they're silent about it, or just not attracted to the
stupidly-high-testosterone environment that tends to mark such a
competition. I ran into MANY more when I used to do roleplaying games,
particularly the text based ones, such as DragonRealms. Make of that
what you will.
Getefix
> jeff_...@zd.com (Jeff Green) wrote:
<snip>
> But as everyone here knows, we've had seriously horrendous page-count
> problems, which limits our options. I'm not making excuses--it's a
> reality. We only get as many pages as Ziff says we get. And every
> month we have, I dunno, 20+ games at least to review. We have to go
> through a horrendous, depressing cutting process every month these
> days where we try to balance quantity of reviews with amount of space
> allocated. It's a no-win situation that we try our best every month
> to win, using our collective judgment. We're not always right, we
> know. I'll tell you one thing though. If the *editors* had *their*
> way, every single review would be at least 3 pages. That's what I'd
> like people on Usenet to keep in mind. We love games and we love
> writing about them, and we could blab on about every game forever, if
> we had the space. But we only have what we're told we have, and we try
> to do the best we can under those conditions. It's a finite page
> count. We can't "just add more" just because we want to. Anyhoo....I
> hope this helps a little.
>
> Jeff Green
> Computer Gaming World
Why not post uncut reviews on the website and place the whittled-down
versions in the mag? Then you could point those who get angry at the
decline in lengthy, quality reviews to the website, and we would not
take our anger out on-line and prejudice the minds of potential new-
readers.
Quatoria
cassandr...@crackednuts.net (Cassandra) wrote:
>Okay, enough of my daily diatribe. :) Just to sum things up, I think
>more women would play if the environment weren't so hostile towards us. I
>play a couple of online games and I get one of two reactions -- either
>I'm ignored, written off as worthless, or I'm hit on (usually after the
>requisite "Are you really a girl in real life?").
Which online games, or, rather, types of games, out of curiosity, are
you talking about? For what it's worth, if you're discussing FPS',
believe me when I say the attitude is universally hostile towards just
about everyone, male or female. Something about running around with a
virtual gun and virtually blowing the hell out of whatever you run
across seems to bring out the worst in people.
Big Bad Joe
Too bad RS isn't a Rock 'n' Roll magazine anymore, and their reviews
are roughly as useful as a football bat. Almost everything in the 20%
of their mag devoted to music gets between 2.5 and 4 stars, which is
silly: Britney Spears deserves ONE, at most. nme.com, on the other
hand, will tell it like it is; they said the guy in Staind sound "like
Eddie Vedder getting fisted in jail." Gotta love that.
Big Bad Joe
>
Mark Asher
snip
> Well, since you bit at the troll squarely (I really didn't expect you to,
> seriously).. let me just say your answer sums it right up. It doesn't
> MATTER to the average PC game magazine reader who "owns" own. The
> PERCEPTION is that you guys are small time because you "share" a site with
> Gamespot.
Hmmm...you posted something that was completely incorrect, Jeff corrected
you, and now you're spraining your elbow trying to pat yourself on the back
for trolling him? I think the Usenet term for you is "looser".
I wonder who you really are? "Masked Debator" is obviously just a 'nym you
created just for this discussion.
snip
> You actually *MADE* my day by totally biting on my troll. Seriously, it
was
> priceless that you actually tried to reason with that post. You ever
think
> about running for political office?
Man, I want to amend my previous statement. "Pathetic looser" is more apt.
Mark Asher
> >reviews, in particular, saying:
> >
> >Pros: stunning graphics, great sound, good intro
> >Cons: buggy as Alaska in June, online play doesn't work, dull
> >gameplay, tired game engine
> >
> >Rating: 79%
>
> :)
>
> >did up the averages, for all the mags, I bet you'd find that the
> >average is about 70% or its equivalent.
>
> ratings are the most insidious and useless version of the 1-10
> systems.
>
> Many of the editors I write for who use 1-10 ranges insist that they
> want me to give average games a 5. Unfortunately, almost *no* writers
> do this! Instead, crappy games get a 6, good games get an 8, and
> really good games get a 9. Everything else gets a 7. They might as
> well retire 1-5 and keep the 10 in a closet somewhere so it doesn't
> get in the way.
>
> I'll take a five star system, or even Daily Radar's Hit/Miss, any day
> of the week.
Yeah, I agree with this. A 5 or a 50% almost never means average, like it
should. Average games get a 70%. It just totally skews the whole rating
system.
Daily Radar's system is better, and I also like the 5-star system better. I
even like graded ratings, although apparently the A through F scholastic
rating means different things to different people all over the world.
Mark Asher
noman <no_m_an...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:23afef04...@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com...
> In article <38ff6f3c....@news.zd.com>, jeff_...@zd.com
> (Jeff Green) wrote:
> >On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 16:23:14 -0700, noman
> ><no_m_an...@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
> >Our last two covers are for The Sims (a game already out when we
> >wrote the story) and Diablo 2 (a game about to ship). So much
> >for that theory.
>
> Well, I'd never give an upcoming Blizzard game "about to ship"
> label :) but seriously, my point was about, featuring on the
> cover a yet to be released game and not giving due respects to
> the titles which got really high review marks. I wonder which
> title got the best review in the issue with the DiabloII cover.
It's just the prevailing practice now to feature previews on the covers. You
know why? Because that's what moves more copies. The industry is really
preview-driven because that's what readers want. I find myself more
interested in reading about a game I haven't read about before than reading
a review of a game that I've been reading about for the last two years as
its been in development.
BTW, when Jeff is referring to the Diablo 2 cover issue shipping, he's
referring to a new tact CGW is taking. They're trying to focus on a big
title that's about to ship and give in-depth, hands-on coverage of the title
right before it ships. It seems to me that this would be exactly what a lot
of readers are asking for, as long as you want to read about Diablo 2, AOE2,
or C&C2. But that's always the problem, isn't it? If you're not interested
in those games, the issue probably seems unappealing.
> I am not suggesting anything here besides the point that CGW
> looks to have different priorities (targetted audience) these
> days and the 'previewed title on cover which may get panned
> later' approach is just one indication.
I think that they probably do have different ideas about what their
readership wants, but a lot of this you can just mark down to the industry
changing a lot in the last five years. Five years ago and CGW you'd probably
find a lot of pages devoted to adventure games. You'd probably find more
stuff about historical wargames. Where are those games today? They're
scarcely being made anymore. Five years ago we were months from C&C and
Warcraft 2 being released. Think of all the RTS coverage now that CGW needs
to supply to readers. Things have changed.
> Like Joel Mathis asked you, what purpose does an extremely
> short review of a game like Rising Sun (which got great ratings)
> serve ?
It gives a number of readers a brief review of the game. What's the
alternative? Cut out some previews and make reviews like this one longer?
You'd make some readers happy, but you'd probably make more readers unhappy.
The reality is that all computer magazines, as far as I can tell, seem to
have had their page counts reduced because ad sales are down across the
industry -- and I don't know if anyone knows why that is, either. The most
dramatic example is Computer Shopper, which used to look like a phonebook.
Now it looks like that former fat guy who ate nothing by Subway sandwiches.
There's a new British mag devoted to strategy games to the exclusion of
other genres. Phil Steinmeyer of Poptop is the guy who showed it to me. You
might want to think about subscribing to it. Maybe this is one way magazines
could go, focus more on a genre and give better in-depth coverage of that
genre.
Krud
>
> Your experience is a prime example of why I refuse to buy anything from
Best
> Buy. Their name apparently doesn't also mean 'Best Service' (or, "Any
> Service"). I've never seen a retail chain with a more incredulously
> incompetent staff. Their policies are draconian and so non-customer
> friendly, it's almost as if they figure "hey, our prices are low, so we'll
> just do whatever we want and you'll still shop with us"..
So how long have been here on Earth? I hate to be the one to tell you this,
but that's the way the "retail super-store" world works. You see, the idea
is to hire morons (because they work cheap) and lower prices. It's the
American way..... So you may as well stay out of BJ's, Sam's Club, Target,
Wal-mart, Home Depot, Lowes (did I miss any?). If you go into a super-store
expecting service, then you're the moron (which we already know is true).
-Krud
Krud
news:0LWL4.716$Xc.3...@news1.primary.net...
>
> Hmmm...you posted something that was completely incorrect, Jeff corrected
> you, and now you're spraining your elbow trying to pat yourself on the
back
> for trolling him? I think the Usenet term for you is "looser".
No, it's "twit". Come on now Mark, if we're going to label people, lets do
it right.
-Krud
Joel Mathis
wrote:
>I've long hated the 1-10 system or any variation thereof. The 1-100
>ratings are the most insidious and useless version of the 1-10
>systems.
I'm with you on this one. It makes it worse when they print a scale
of sorts ("if the game rates between 60-69 it's an okay game with some
flaws") and most of their games rate above the "average" mark.
>Many of the editors I write for who use 1-10 ranges insist that they
>want me to give average games a 5. Unfortunately, almost *no* writers
>do this! Instead, crappy games get a 6, good games get an 8, and
>really good games get a 9. Everything else gets a 7. They might as
>well retire 1-5 and keep the 10 in a closet somewhere so it doesn't
>get in the way.
And worse, some people assume that if it gets a five it must be a
truly horrible game. Try to explain to them that the largest number
of games should be rated five according to statistical distribution
and they don't understand.
>I'll take a five star system, or even Daily Radar's Hit/Miss, any day
>of the week.
Hey, there's a compliment I can give CGW. They are the most strict of
all magazines when it comes to handling their rating scale. Average
games do get two and a half to three and a half stars.
Joel Mathis
See the Hot Sheet at Gone Gold for my take on the day's news
http://www.gonegold.com/hot
The Masked Debator
Krud <au...@home.com> wrote in message
news:EiXL4.59680$E85.9...@news1.rdc1.md.home.com...
Coming from a guy whose name is "Krud", somehow I don't feel so bad. As a
matter of personal experience, I've had good service at Lowes, Sam's Club,
BJ's and Target. Wal-Mart and Home Depot you hit on the head, but don't
assume just because a store is a retail shop that they don't know how to
help you get what you're looking for. (Which, in your case, is apparently
the family pack of Jumbo-size enema.)
TMD
The Masked Debator
makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Thanks for the morning laugh.
TMD
Old Salt <old....@att.net > wrote in message
news:jepvfs8jr3vltokgo...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 05:03:06 GMT Plato was dumbfounded by what, "The
> Masked Debator" <sa...@out-loud.com> said about, "Re: CGW -- crying
> over spilled milk as always",
>
> Plonk!
>
>
> --
> Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.
> Politically Incorrect and proud of it.
> My Mail Server is Protected by SPAMKILLER
Christopher E. Johnson
cassandr...@crackednuts.net says...
> Not to get off on a feminazi crusade here, but the industry as a whole is
> hostile towards women in just about every way. From the extremely sexist
> portrayal of female characters in games, to blatantly male-oriented
> marketing, to being ignored in computer stores.
>
>
couldn't agree with you more. For me the last straw was CGW's vampire
cover. I know this is going to looke very PC, but it really isn't. I
simply do not need to see half-naked women in my gaming magazines (or my
games for that matter). It is all a calculated ploy by magazines to
attract a younger audience. Some adult males may enjoy this kind of
stuff in their gaming magazines as a harmless titilation, but I am not
one of them.
Chris
The Masked Debator
to,
> > seriously).. let me just say your answer sums it right up. It doesn't
> > MATTER to the average PC game magazine reader who "owns" own. The
> > PERCEPTION is that you guys are small time because you "share" a site
with
> > Gamespot.
>
> you, and now you're spraining your elbow trying to pat yourself on the
back
> for trolling him? I think the Usenet term for you is "looser".
Mark, I believe the industry term for YOU is "sniveling punk".. Anyone who's
read your work can attest to that.
I was making a point, you pompous ass, that CGW's web presence is pitiful.
It doesn't matter that ZD controls them both and doesn't let CGW get the
bigger piece of the pie, it's the end-user perception of the fact I was
pointing to. The first post was an obvious troll designed to elicit some
sort of response. But I forgot, how "serious" all you 'journalists' get
when someone tries to have a bit of fun at your expense.
> I wonder who you really are? "Masked Debator" is obviously just a 'nym you
> created just for this discussion.
Say my name out loud, genius. And please, don't spend too much time
wondering about it, we wouldn't want your next piece to be late or have any
additional inaccuracies.
>
> snip
>
> > You actually *MADE* my day by totally biting on my troll. Seriously, it
> was
> > priceless that you actually tried to reason with that post. You ever
> think
> > about running for political office?
>
> Man, I want to amend my previous statement. "Pathetic looser" is more apt.
Considering the fact that you can't even spell "loser", I think you've just
managed to lower the bar for your team once again! Congratulations!
TMD
>
>
>
Christopher E. Johnson
tomc...@cutthispartout.primenet.com says...
> It's a bit unfair for you to level that charge at computer gaming
> along. Your anecdote about buying a monitor shows that this sort of
> patronizing "little lady" mentality exists in the entire computer
> industry. It also exists in other industries, such as hi-fidelity
> audio equipment, automotive sales, and at hardware stores. The games
> business isn't unique in that regard.
>
>
>
I understand what you are writing, but I must invoke the "two wrongs
don't make a right" logical fallacy <g>. It may not be unique in this
regard, but it certainly doesn't defeat her original premise about it not
being the correct way to treat folks.
Chris
The Masked Debator
> "Mark Asher" <ma...@nospamcdmnet.com> wrote in message
> news:0LWL4.716$Xc.3...@news1.primary.net...
> >
corrected
> > you, and now you're spraining your elbow trying to pat yourself on the
> back
> > for trolling him? I think the Usenet term for you is "looser".
>
do
> it right.
>
> -Krud
I'd be willing to work harder to achieve "flaming asshole", but only if you
think it's a realistic goal...
TMD
Mark Asher
>
> Mark Asher <ma...@nospamcdmnet.com> wrote in message
> news:0LWL4.716$Xc.3...@news1.primary.net...
news:BwOL4.223004
> >
> > snip
> >
> > > Well, since you bit at the troll squarely (I really didn't expect you
> to,
> > > seriously).. let me just say your answer sums it right up. It doesn't
> > > MATTER to the average PC game magazine reader who "owns" own. The
> > > PERCEPTION is that you guys are small time because you "share" a site
> with
> > > Gamespot.
> >
corrected
> > you, and now you're spraining your elbow trying to pat yourself on the
> back
> > for trolling him? I think the Usenet term for you is "looser".
>
who's
> read your work can attest to that.
> I was making a point, you pompous ass, that CGW's web presence is pitiful.
> It doesn't matter that ZD controls them both and doesn't let CGW get the
> bigger piece of the pie, it's the end-user perception of the fact I was
> pointing to. The first post was an obvious troll designed to elicit some
> sort of response. But I forgot, how "serious" all you 'journalists' get
> when someone tries to have a bit of fun at your expense.
Heh -- I think I trolled him! I can't believe he fell for it!
> > I wonder who you really are? "Masked Debator" is obviously just a 'nym
you
> > created just for this discussion.
>
> Say my name out loud, genius. And please, don't spend too much time
> wondering about it, we wouldn't want your next piece to be late or have
any
> additional inaccuracies.
Oh please. Masturbater? Lenny Bruce was making jokes like that in the '60's.
Find some new material to steal.
> > snip
> >
> > > You actually *MADE* my day by totally biting on my troll. Seriously,
it
> > was
> > > priceless that you actually tried to reason with that post. You ever
> > think
> > > about running for political office?
> >
> > Man, I want to amend my previous statement. "Pathetic looser" is more
apt.
>
> Considering the fact that you can't even spell "loser", I think you've
just
> managed to lower the bar for your team once again! Congratulations!
Heh -- right. I can't spell loser. That's why I put it in quotes, "looser."
<g>
So, who are you really, Masturbator? You mentioned going to E3 in a previous
post, so I'm assuming you're someone who works in the industry, though
perhaps on the fringes somewhere. Why not post under your real name if
you're going to take potshots? Why hide?
Mark Asher
Christopher E. Johnson <john...@ufl.edu> wrote in message
news:MPG.136a0a54...@enews.newsguy.com...
Well, you see half-naked women in your games and the game ads all the time.
CGW put out one issue with a vamped up vampire on the cover. Why does that
weigh so heavily against the 15 years of other covers they've put out?
The only thing I didn't like about the cover was that the vampire had bite
marks on her throat. That didn't make any sense. I demand logical
consistency in my t&a horror pics.
Krud
>
> So, who are you really, Masturbator? You mentioned going to E3 in a
previous
> post, so I'm assuming you're someone who works in the industry, though
> perhaps on the fringes somewhere. Why not post under your real name if
> you're going to take potshots? Why hide?
He was the first guy to lose his job when PC Accelerator closed up. Now
he's working at a Retail Super-Store in the service department. That's why
he's so miserable.
-Krud
Joel Mathis
It's annoying to have six or seven threads rather than just one.
David Short
Geoff Black wrote in message ...
>...But then that is going to leave me with the dilemma of what to read when
>I'm on the toilet, it is a bit hard to cart my computer in there.
It's only a matter of time before somebody markets a decent web agent
into one of the palm units. Set the thing to download new content from
your favorite sites while you sleep. Wake up to a newspaper you can
take with you. The hardware and software exist now.
dfs
sam
I personally enjoy kicking up my feet and reading a good magazine. To me a
good Computer Gaming mag is like reading a good book. I would hate to see
magazines go the way of the dinosuar. The only good I get out of online sites
is for a quick review. They just seems impersonal and untrustworthy to me.
Mags I have been reading for years are more trustworthy IMHO. Of course some
have gotten lazy in their content (CGW), but hopefully they can pull their
asses out of the fire before its to late. Its also much easier to go back and
read past articles from years ago. Can you do that online? NO, its like
pulling teeth if its not the latest and greatest.
1 -PC Gamer - best one out right now
2- Computer Games (once Strategies Plus) is coming on very strong and Im
liking it better each issue. Reminds me of the old Computer Gaming World
3 - Computer Gaming World - Stop being so damn lazy and cheap and increase the
content. Except for Loyd Cases and Jeff Green the magazine has been heading
for the crapper for the past year or two.
4. PC Accelerator - Something different and made me laugh on occasion . Hate
to see it go.
5. Incite - Trying to be to much in to few pages. Best CD with any mag I've
seen.
Mark Asher wrote:
> It's dead. Imagine pulled the plug on it. I guess the PCXL subs will be
> switched to PC Gamer.
>
> This leaves CGW, Gamer, CGS+, and Incite as mags devoted exclusively to PC
> games. I'd be surprised if all of those survive too.
Quatoria
Christopher E. Johnson <john...@ufl.edu> wrote:
>We did a series of pieces about this at Games Domain a while back and I
>couldn't agree with you more. For me the last straw was CGW's vampire
>cover. I know this is going to looke very PC, but it really isn't. I
>simply do not need to see half-naked women in my gaming magazines (or my
>games for that matter). It is all a calculated ploy by magazines to
>attract a younger audience. Some adult males may enjoy this kind of
>stuff in their gaming magazines as a harmless titilation, but I am not
>one of them.
>
>Chris
If you found that offensive, how did you take (Incite?)'s Killcreek
"Hot for Teacher" cover? There's a dignified and respectful treatment
of a gaming professional.
Jonathan K.
>I'm with you on this one. It makes it worse when they print a scale
>of sorts ("if the game rates between 60-69 it's an okay game with some
>flaws") and most of their games rate above the "average" mark.
The ultimate one has to be in PC Gamer in the 90-100 description:
"Any game we rate over 90% is an instant classic..." I suppose it's
true: Outhouse and Ascendancy were indeed instant classics of a sort.
They would simply have been forgotten as crappy games if it hadn't
been for their over 90% 'instant classic' ratings from PCG.
I know they apologized in at least one case, but that doesn't reverse
the lesson: even if PC Gamer rates a game an 'instant classic' (has
it ever occurred to them that they're overstating the point just a tad
bit?), it may still turn out to go down in coaster history. I'm not
taking the Critical Bill stance (that there's graft) because I don't
have any evidence of it. I just don't put any faith in 'instant
classic' claims by them anymore.
The other area in which I'm pretty disgusted with game magazines is
the ongoing Myst/Riven- and Deer Hunter-bashing. Now, neither game
appeals to me. But they damn well appeal to *somebody* (or they would
not be outselling every game I like by some ridiculous margin). They
may not be 'games according to the lofty perspective of some game
magazine writers', but they are clearly games in someone's eyes. They
appeal to different crowds than the Command & Conquer crowd, the
Operational Art of War crowd, and so on.
If the bashing were simply myopia ('it's not a game I could remotely
like, therefore it must not be a game') that'd be one thing, but I
suggest that it could be affecting the growth of the hobby. My wife's
first game was Myst. She loved it and played it for hours.
Encouraged by me (seeing a glimmer of the gamer's dream before my
eyes), she branched out into other areas. HOMM II hooked her, and
soon we began playing it together. She even plays Steel Panthers with
me now. If I'd ridiculed her interest in Myst, I doubt she'd have
gone much further with computer gaming.
Point: by appealing to crowds that apparently weren't buying other
computer games, games like Myst/Riven and Deer Hunter broaden the
appeal of computer gaming, much in the way that Panzer General
broadened the appeal of computer wargaming specifically. With
whatever percentage of games (many of them very good) losing money, it
is in all our best interests to see more people attracted to the
hobby--whether we consider it to be 'gaming' or not.
--
Jonathan K.
Jeffrey Morris
To be honest, one of the things I regretted CGW adding the most was the
5 star rating. For most of CGW's existence, one had to actually read and
digest the review to determine whether they'd like the title or not. I can
only imagine this lead to a far more educated consumer, which lead to more
astute and satisfying purchases. I understand it's a popular (maybe even
necessary) feature, but in my personal opinion it was a step in the wrong
direction. I think it's misleading at best to rate products as sophisticated
as computer games with such a simple system. Not a realistic criticism to be
sure, but one that I make because CGW used to avoid the problem altogether.
Jeff Morris
Firaxis Games
"Mark Asher" <ma...@nospamcdmnet.com> wrote in message
news:m1XL4.718$Xc.3...@news1.primary.net...
>
> Tom Chick <tomc...@cutthispartout.primenet.com> wrote in message
> news:au==OM4fgmGtWjgI...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 05:19:53 GMT, apostate@r/e/m/o/v/e.gte.net
> > (Jonathan K.) wrote:
> >
> > >That was always my complaint. I got heartily sick of PC Gamer
> > >reviews, in particular, saying:
> > >
> > >Pros: stunning graphics, great sound, good intro
> > >Cons: buggy as Alaska in June, online play doesn't work, dull
> > >gameplay, tired game engine
> > >
> > >Rating: 79%
> >
> > I think they have a macro that pastes this at the top of every review.
> > :)
> >
> > >It seems to me that the average game should be awarded 50%. If you
> > >did up the averages, for all the mags, I bet you'd find that the
> > >average is about 70% or its equivalent.
> >
> > I've long hated the 1-10 system or any variation thereof. The 1-100
> > ratings are the most insidious and useless version of the 1-10
> > systems.
> >
> > Many of the editors I write for who use 1-10 ranges insist that they
> > want me to give average games a 5. Unfortunately, almost *no* writers
> > do this! Instead, crappy games get a 6, good games get an 8, and
> > really good games get a 9. Everything else gets a 7. They might as
> > well retire 1-5 and keep the 10 in a closet somewhere so it doesn't
> > get in the way.
> >
> > I'll take a five star system, or even Daily Radar's Hit/Miss, any day
> > of the week.
>
bunboy
some of the other things they satirized. Just publishing pictures and then
saying why she won't go out with .....(fill in the name of the reporter).
--
Bunboy,
The people who can smile when things go wrong have found someone else
to blame.
"Jeff Green" <jeff_...@zd.com> wrote in message
news:38ff80d2....@news.zd.com...
> On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:44:46 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
> <jmo...@firaxis.com> wrote:
>
> > I think a more worthwhile topic for the people in this thread is
debate
> >whether this industry deserves to be lampooned in (e-)print. I loved the
> >Online Nuisance column in PC Accelerator. I enjoyed the article on drunk
> >driving with racing sims. I even laughed out loud at the Ass Olympics
which
> >gave games awards for things like Bugs, Boredom and Difficulty (for which
> >SMAC won an honorable mention). Gaming is an industry rife with hypocracy
> >and privilage. What better arena for satire? I truly valued PC
Accelerator
> >for this.
> > And what about an New England Journal of Medicine for computer
gamers?
> >Could somebody establish a successful, intellectual PC gaming rag?
> >
> >Jeff Morris
> >Firaxis Games
> >
> I loved the *concept* behind PC Accelerator---and definitely believe
> there are ample opportunities for satirizing the industry. They often
> did that extremely well. Their preview of Tomb Raider 4 was brilliant
> and hilarious. I balked at the overly dumb sexist stuff, but that's
> just me. I am actually sorry, believe it or not, to see them go
> (except for the sexism).
>
> As far as a NEJM for computer games---it's a great idea, and it would
> never sell. It sure would make for a great read though.
Jonathan K.
>We did a series of pieces about this at Games Domain a while back and I
>couldn't agree with you more. For me the last straw was CGW's vampire
>cover. I know this is going to looke very PC, but it really isn't. I
>simply do not need to see half-naked women in my gaming magazines (or my
>games for that matter). It is all a calculated ploy by magazines to
>attract a younger audience. Some adult males may enjoy this kind of
>stuff in their gaming magazines as a harmless titilation, but I am not
>one of them.
I'd like to see more of Farah Houston's writing in general on GDR.
Her writing on the topic was some of the most thoughtful and
interesting I've seen, and she accomplished it without being a gender
bigot. That's all too rare.
--
Jonathan K.
Cassandra
Quat...@NOSPAM.bellsouth.net says...
> Which online games, or, rather, types of games, out of curiosity, are
> you talking about? For what it's worth, if you're discussing FPS',
> believe me when I say the attitude is universally hostile towards just
> about everyone, male or female. Something about running around with a
> virtual gun and virtually blowing the hell out of whatever you run
> across seems to bring out the worst in people.
I stick to rpgs as online games these days. Yes, FPS are normally hostile
towards everyone, but its a different type of hostility towards women.
I've had my fill of being called whore and slut in FPS games, thanks very
much, so I tend to avoid them like the plague. Most women I know either
ignore them or try to emulate the disgusting behavior in order to be
accepted by the boys and not be targets for such abuse.
--
Cassandra
Managing Editor
Cracked Nuts
www.crackednuts.net
Christoph Nahr
wrote:
>Why don't you give me some specific reviews/writers that have made you
>unhappy? Many of our freelancers are ones that were writing for us
>back in the glory days you're talking about. Some of those reviews
>you mention were great, and some were hack jobs, even back then. It's
>a writer by writer, case by case thing. Let's not just put on
>rose-colored glasses about the past.
First of all, fire that George Jones guy, or at least take away his
keyboard. Is he the publisher's nephew or how did he get this job in
the first place? I've never heard his name before he suddenly popped
up as CGW Editor, and I have yet to read a single good article by him.
He has strange ideas about games that go completely against my own
experience and expectations, and against what I perceive as the other
CGW writers' opinions. I don't know how good he is at managing the
magazine but any of you guys would make a better editorial writer.
> I'll still put our reviews up against anyone's in the business.
After you put them on a copy machine with a 4x magnification, perhaps?
PC Gamer ran a full page review of Campaign 1776, CGM did the same for
TacOps 3.0. In CGW, wargames of similar stature get the infamous
"quick hits" treatment of a quarter page "review" (TOAW: WOTY, 12
O'Clock High). In my current two issues (see below), only the
high-profile CC4 got a proper review. There were complaints about
these "quick hits" before but they're still there, and only in CGW.
You don't have a wargame editor, unlike CGM and PCG. Your readers
were left in the dark about the flood of independently published
wargames, reported on by William Trotter and Scott Udell. You don't
have a full-time RPG editor, unlike CGM and PCG. (Though the quality
of Desslock's writing somewhat makes up for his lack of time.)
Your mag is rather thin to begin with, and the magazine comparison on
Evil Avatar (uh, the only useful feature on this site) keeps showing
an extremely high ads-to-contents ratio for your magazine. Your
magazine consistently gives less editorial content than PCG or CGM,
and your content is not that much better to justify the difference.
You will have noticed that I'm not ragging on the writers, except for
George Jones. You have a couple of great writers, yourself of course
included. But you have too few of them, and you put out too little
content. This is compared to your existing, real-world competition,
not to some pie-in-the-sky ideal of a gaming mag.
Finally, my current two CGW issues are March and April -- not May.
Both arrived within the last week. Also in the last week, I received
the May issues of CGM and PCG. In the couple of years that I've been
subscribing to US gaming mags, CGW issues were always the last *by
far*, typically arriving several weeks after PCG and CGM. Again this
is not your fault but it does devalue your magazine.
So in conclusion I think CGW *is* in a pretty bad state, and I don't
see it recovering. However, I don't think the staff is to blame.
What I see is a combination of questionable editorial policies and a
greedy careless publisher (too many ads, persistent delivery problems,
and the miserable website that was forced upon CGW).
--
Chris Nahr (christo...@uumail.xxde, remove xx to reply by e-mail)
Please reply either on Usenet or by e-mail but not both!
Visit http://uuhome.de/christoph.nahr/ for Might & Magic information
and game projects with source code for download: Star Chess & Hexkit
Christoph Nahr
<ma...@nospamcdmnet.com> wrote:
>It's just the prevailing practice now to feature previews on the covers. You
>know why? Because that's what moves more copies. The industry is really
>preview-driven because that's what readers want. I find myself more
>interested in reading about a game I haven't read about before than reading
>a review of a game that I've been reading about for the last two years as
>its been in development.
That's a bit of a problem when your target audience is already
connected to the Internet, though. Chances are they've read it all
before the magazine arrives in the mailbox. As I see it, two big
weaknesses of the web are that it's completely oblivious to history
and not conducive to in-depth analysis. Printed magazines should try
to do what the web can't, rather than desperately trying to catch up
with it. Extensive surveys, history of gaming, development processes,
long articles whose detail makes up for their lack of timeliness.
Previews without much detail, list of "100 hottest games," and those
infamous "quick hits" all count among the dumbest things a printed
magazine could possibly do IMO. The web does all that much better.
>BTW, when Jeff is referring to the Diablo 2 cover issue shipping, he's
>referring to a new tact CGW is taking. They're trying to focus on a big
>title that's about to ship and give in-depth, hands-on coverage of the title
>right before it ships. It seems to me that this would be exactly what a lot
>of readers are asking for, as long as you want to read about Diablo 2, AOE2,
>or C&C2. But that's always the problem, isn't it? If you're not interested
>in those games, the issue probably seems unappealing.
In-depth is great. Right before it ships? Printed magazines have a
built-in production delay of one month or more, and thanks to ZD's
incompetent delivery system CGW may arrive another month later.
So I think there are two problems with focusing on big previews. It's
not just that readers may be uninterested in that specific title, it's
also that the preview may be completely outdated by the time it
appears. How about describing the development history in a preview,
with all the conceptual changes and redesigns that many titles are
going through? That's something that would be interesting to read
even one month after the game has come out.
>I think that they probably do have different ideas about what their
>readership wants, but a lot of this you can just mark down to the industry
>changing a lot in the last five years. Five years ago and CGW you'd probably
>find a lot of pages devoted to adventure games. You'd probably find more
>stuff about historical wargames. Where are those games today? They're
>scarcely being made anymore. Five years ago we were months from C&C and
>Warcraft 2 being released. Think of all the RTS coverage now that CGW needs
>to supply to readers. Things have changed.
You are correct about adventures but not about wargames. Take a look
at PCG and CGM. There are *tons* of new wargames being made by
independent publishers. Except that you wouldn't know if you get your
news from CGW because they don't have a wargames editor.
>It gives a number of readers a brief review of the game. What's the
>alternative? Cut out some previews and make reviews like this one longer?
>You'd make some readers happy, but you'd probably make more readers unhappy.
Again, please look at the competition. PCG and CGM consistently
supply more editorial contents per issue, and they do cover relatively
obscure games in greater detail than CGW. It's possible. The
restraints you give only seem to apply to CGW, for some reason.
>The reality is that all computer magazines, as far as I can tell, seem to
>have had their page counts reduced because ad sales are down across the
>industry -- and I don't know if anyone knows why that is, either. The most
>dramatic example is Computer Shopper, which used to look like a phonebook.
>Now it looks like that former fat guy who ate nothing by Subway sandwiches.
I don't care about raw page counts but the amount of editorial content
in PCG hasn't visibly shrunk, and the "deluxe" edition of CGM now
offers perhaps twice the amount of content that CGW has. CGW is now
the worst of the "big three" in terms of editorial content.
>There's a new British mag devoted to strategy games to the exclusion of
>other genres. Phil Steinmeyer of Poptop is the guy who showed it to me. You
>might want to think about subscribing to it. Maybe this is one way magazines
>could go, focus more on a genre and give better in-depth coverage of that
>genre.
Cyber Stratège tried just that, and it folded for lack of sales.
Maybe this new UK magazine will have more success, with their
potentially bigger audience (US readers).
Jonathan K.
>So how long have been here on Earth? I hate to be the one to tell you this,
>but that's the way the "retail super-store" world works. You see, the idea
>is to hire morons (because they work cheap) and lower prices. It's the
>American way..... So you may as well stay out of BJ's, Sam's Club, Target,
>Wal-mart, Home Depot, Lowes (did I miss any?). If you go into a super-store
>expecting service, then you're the moron (which we already know is true).
Tell me about it. A Best Buy opened in our town a couple of months
ago. Since I'm in the computer consulting business, I figured I'd
better brave the zoo of Opening Day and see what I would be getting
calls to straighten out. As luck would have it, I ran into a couple
of my stupidest customers, who wanted to yack my ear off about what
they were doing with their PC. However, when the wife said "you know,
you could probably get a job here", my professional restraint caved
in. I laughed so hard I'm sure it offended her. When she seemed
miffed, I explained to her that people with twelve years in the
computing business do *not* go to work at Best Buy for a quarter of
what they're worth. It was like telling one's M.D. that s/he might be
able to get a job supervising a wing of a nursing home.
Thus far my impression of them is this: the only diff between Best
Buy and the Future Shop whose space they took over is that Best Buy
has much louder noise. I'm partly hearing-damaged and it's rarely an
advantage in life, but when I have to pass the portals of Best Buy,
I'm actually a little glad for it.
--
Jonathan K.
Christopher E. Johnson
says...
> Well, you see half-naked women in your games and the game ads all the time.
> CGW put out one issue with a vamped up vampire on the cover. Why does that
> weigh so heavily against the 15 years of other covers they've put out?
>
>
>
cumulative effect and it is not just a CGW problem (thus my happiness
with PC Accelerator's demise). And, again, I don't buy the "two wrongs
makes a right" line of reasoning used by folks that defend or try to
explain this practice.
Chris
Jonathan K.
>5. Incite - Trying to be to much in to few pages. Best CD with any mag I've
>seen.
At first look my thought was 'wow, this is easily the stupidest gaming
mag I've seen'. Then I looked at the reviews and saw the speed/RAM
charts showing how the game should perform from underpowered systems
to state of the art, and I was really impressed. I ignore all the
horny male teen- (and horny adult male who can't get laid) targeted
garbage and turn straight to the reviews, which give me a really
helpful idea of where my system rates in terms of actual ability to
run the game. No other magazine I've seen does this; most just list
the 'minimum', the 'we tested with', and the 'recommended'.
--
Jonathan K.