ZymeAddict on 26/9/2009 at 10:40
Why does it seem that UK/Commonwealth gaming magazines (print or otherwise) are always so much better than the shit we get over here?
Maybe it's just me, but UK gaming writers have always struck me as being much more professional, educated (in their field at least), and mature than their American counterparts.
I swear, at times it seems like PC Gamer is written and edited by a bunch of fucking 12-year-olds.
Koki on 26/9/2009 at 10:44
They're all shit.
gunsmoke on 26/9/2009 at 11:10
I don't know. It is like anything, there are options for everyone and you roll with what agrees with you. I, personally, like EuroGamer for reviews, and GameSpy or GameSpot for second opinions.
addink on 26/9/2009 at 12:10
I'm not a big magazine follower.
Reviews can be hit or miss even with professional writers, and I tend to read them just to get a general feel for the game. Sadly it is not uncommon that I feel that a reviewer has completely and utterly missed the point, so single reviews are not that much to go on.
As for non-reviews, the general articles, magazines are not the place to go. Journalists tend to lack the skill to abstractly analyse anything and mixup concepts. A good game does not equal fun or beautiful, yet those words keep popping up.
As for interviews with developers. I don't even see the point of them. Developers love their fans, love the cool stuff that's part of their upcoming title, complain about old publishers, cheer new publishers.
Back in the day I used to buy the PC Format (OnTopic: indeed a UK mag) they had a consistant group of reviewers some of which, every now and then, tried to delve into the various levels for which a game can be enjoyed.
But then mid/end-90s things changed. The internet happened, 3D engines florished and games became a serious business. Game publishers started to push genres instead of innovation, and hype instead of quality. Magazine publishers followed suit, including PC Format. Hype sells not only games, but also magazines (at least that is my take on it).
For serious discourse on games I nowadays read more online stuff, discussions, forums and the occasional blog. Though the web2.0 approach does dilute conclusions, and polarizes conflicting opinions, it's definately more informative than any mag I know.
Also post-mortems can be an interesting read.
-
What I'd love to see, is well informed journalists write objective pieces on games, genres or concepts. Look past the pretty details, look past small improvements that really don't affect the gameplay. Cheer on innovation even if the result isn't a polished AAA title.
But I don't think that can be found in magazines.
Koki on 26/9/2009 at 13:03
Quote Posted by addink
Reviews can be hit or miss even with professional writers
What makes a review
hit or
miss?
addink on 26/9/2009 at 14:10
If the review actually describes the issues that matter..
For instance a lot of survival horror suffers from clunky interfaces and/or camera angles. People can complain all they want about those issues, but what matters most is if the game gets the tension right. If the tension is right, even because of the clunky interface, the game in essence is right. Story and balance is of more importance than smooth interaction, with a sidenote that 'balance' does imply that the interface shouldn't be frustrating.
A good review of a game points out its flaws and points out its merits. All but too often does a reviewer pick a few points and goes on and on about them.
With most of the bad reviews I feel that the reviewer doesn't objectively describe the game. The review in those cases comes across as (and is) a subjective, how-I-happen-to-feel-today story of no merit at all.
-
A slight tangent:
There's also an issue that struck me as odd before, which is sort of related:
A lot of people seem to think that a game is only good if the game is a simulation of reality. Though things do make more sense if they reflect your every day set of actions, that doesn't mean a game is bad if it doesn't.
Some things are taken for granted and expected within games even though they make no sense, for instance 'leveling up' within RPGs or 'shooting buttons' within FPSs. Both are game simple mechanics, expected and accepted.
But as soon as our protagonist refuses to jump a 3 foot fence, it is bad design, because in real life we'd have jumped the fence to get to the 'vial of instant health' immediately. The unjumpable fence is just as much a simple game mechanic as the others are.. sure it could be represented better but it wouldn't really change the game play.
Paz on 26/9/2009 at 17:42
The 3 foot fence thing is a gaming classic, and of course what it represents is the developer (or map designer, whatever) saying 'no, we don't want you to do that' or 'we don't want you to go that way.' That's fine, to an extent.
I think it can cause problems in two ways. On the Realism level, it REALLY stands out if we've just watched a cut-scene where our hero leaps dramatically six feet in the air. It's not unreasonable for the player to feel a bit cheated by a tiny fence after seeing that.
Where obvious barriers tend to cause even more frustration is through ... well, their obviousness. In the same way that a good referee doesn't stand out too much in a match, good barriers just quietly guide players around without loudly making themselves known. If the player starts to notice 'hang on, this massive city/fight arena/whatever is actually a bit small isn't it?' then there's a problem.
The type of game and feel being aimed for clearly plays a part here. If it's a single-screen puzzle game where barriers play some kind of role, great - nobody's gonna care if they function well within the game's own rules. Where it starts to hurt is if you've tried to create the illusion of a huge, open-world spaceship but stopped people going anywhere by leaving knee-high metal bollards around the place.
In the broader sense of 'reality' not being any kind of special magical thing for (most) games to aim for though, I totally agree.
Thirith on 26/9/2009 at 18:28
I was in London this week and picked up a magazine called Games(tm) at Heathrow on the way back. It was far from perfect, but it was remarkably grown up and had some good articles. Even the reviews were far from the usual hype-and-nob-jokes that I remembered from other UK publications. (I still liked the writing in the UK PC Gamer back in the days of Baldur's Gate 2, but I could've done without the heavy reliance on adolescent humour. It gets stale pretty fast.)
Sulphur on 26/9/2009 at 19:05
I used to like Eurogamer's reviews a lot more when they had a tendency to put out concept reviews. Their Fahrenheit and Boiling Point reviews were entertaining and informative reads. Guess they had to drop the weird stuff once they got some serious financial backing.
I don't think there's such a huge disparity in quality, though: sites and blogs like Gamasutra, Game Set Watch, Grand Text Auto (and a while ago, The Escapist) have had some pretty good articles on the state of gaming.
Reviews tend to be all over the place regardless of their country of origin. If you grade them based on professionalism/lack of knob jokes, the UK wins out by default simply because half the nation's history involves its people shaking their heads and tut-tutting at the rest of the world whilst referring to them as 'uncouth savages' over tea and crumpets.
If you grade reviews on fair and objective viewpoints, though, I think you'll find that those are as equally few on either side. Or any other side you'd care to name, for that matter.
WingedKagouti on 26/9/2009 at 19:20
Quote Posted by Koki
What makes a review
hit or
miss?
A review that hits touches on all facets of the subject.
A review that misses only touches on some of the facets of the subject and may focus overtly on a single facet.
IMO it has nothing to do with the final score or whether you actually agree with the review. It's all about how thorough the review is.
