sonycowboy
Member
Full article available below:
http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=8067§ion=media&email=
http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=8067§ion=media&email=
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
(biz.gamedaily) 7 Bad Mistakes that Good Mags Make
- Thread starter sonycowboy
- Start date
MightyHedgehog
Member
That's the big problem, IMO.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
MightyHedgehog said:
"But we're sure that these problems will be fixed for the final version."
I hate when previews say that. Some things won't be fixed, no need in tacking that on to the end of every preview to cover your ass. Happens with websites also.
sonycowboy
Member
Rahul said:
Oops. Exactly right.
Biz.gamedaily is the one with the good articles. gamesindustry.com - not so good articles.
If a mod could please fix before GDJustin goes through the roof
FortNinety
Member
I'd have to say a fairly spot on list.
FortNinety
Member
Sho Nuff said:
Agreed. I've met tons of awesome people in the industry over the years. At least one has had a profound impact, not only professionally, but personally as well. Not once did I entertain the notion of bothering him to pose in a pic with me and look all dorkus.
Course, the fact that Im rather un-photogenic perhaps has a lot to do with this. But then again, so are most video game writers.
I KID! I KID!
chespace said:
The two that really jump out is the free pass on previews and the uneven reviews (size, not content this time
)It's a tough balance with previews, since often good games come together at the last moment (Halo is good example of a game that really came together in the last few months of development) but I'd still like to see some sharper critiques of what is presented. In all mags, not just XBN.
Reviews spout out stuff we already know about. Might as well just do a review on the import version and be done with it since they hardly bother to emphasize on localization content which is the main feature for a US review.
Gaming journalists are the least skilled professional journalists in the journalists industry. Their writings are the least engaging compared to other fielded writers.
Gaming journalists are the least skilled professional journalists in the journalists industry. Their writings are the least engaging compared to other fielded writers.
I do a little writing myself and this one is a huge pain. I try to pass on doing previews as much as possible.
I just fail to see the purpose of a negative preview. If the game is a piece of shit -- why are we even wasting magazine space on it? Because the readers want to hear about Driv3r even if the beta we got was a piece of shit. And if we're going to criticize a preview copy... what makes that differ from a review? What purpose does criticism serve in a preview? I don't know, this is a pain and I just usually pass on it, as I said above.
GhaleonEB said:The two that really jump out is the free pass on previews and the uneven reviews (size, not content this time
It's a tough balance with previews, since often good games come together at the last moment (Halo is good example of a game that really came together in the last few months of development) but I'd still like to see some sharper critiques of what is presented. In all mags, not just XBN.
well what i had in mind when i said XBN may be guilty of one of those listed problems wasn't really previews.
if you look at our small previews (megabits towards the front of the book in the "news" section), none of those games get a free pass (bloodrayne 2, for instance). basically, the mag has evolved to doing more selective, bigger preview "features" on games we consider either good or important. that being said, the fact that these games are featured at all means it's one of the two... still, we encourage our writers to call out potential pitfalls in previews as often as possible. but i agree with aku:jiki... previews shouldn't draw conclusions like reviews.
no actually, the thing we may be occasionally guilty of are email Q&As... for feature stories, we always do the interviews in person. but sometimes if you're writing a more newsy or industry oriented type piece, where experiencing someone's personality or presence isn't going to make or break the quotes you get, email Q&As can't be helped.
aku:jiki said:
How about telling the truth? I agree there shouldn't be any solid conclusions drawn from a beta/alpha whatever, but if a game has terrible controls or a poor camera why shouldn't you say so? Or if something sticks out as being utterly out of place? Nothing wrong with a bit of honesty.
I have some issues with the notion of certain game reviewers being unqualified for certain games. It seems to me that if game criticism is to "grow up," it needs to evolve beyond Johnny Final Fantasy Fanboy reviewing all a magazine's RPGs. But that seems to be another topic for another day.
As someone who's written more than a few negative previews, well, I'm torn. Honestly, I'm doing no one a service writing fluff. But by the same token, sometimes I am told to write about something that is junky -- and not finished. And it's tough then to eschew criticism and simply focus on being descriptive. But if I become too critical, well, I'm guilty of criticizing something that's a work in progress and -- hope springs eternal -- it could get better.
I HATE magazine sections where they waste space on photo spreads with the editors hobnobbing.
For the most part, I HATE celebrity interviews in game magazines. It's doubpleplusungood when it's clear the celebrity in question has never been in the same room as a video game. Incite, bless it, was the greatest at pushing some B-rate nobody as a star and interviewing him about his "involvement" with a game.
Oh, end rant.
As someone who's written more than a few negative previews, well, I'm torn. Honestly, I'm doing no one a service writing fluff. But by the same token, sometimes I am told to write about something that is junky -- and not finished. And it's tough then to eschew criticism and simply focus on being descriptive. But if I become too critical, well, I'm guilty of criticizing something that's a work in progress and -- hope springs eternal -- it could get better.
I HATE magazine sections where they waste space on photo spreads with the editors hobnobbing.
For the most part, I HATE celebrity interviews in game magazines. It's doubpleplusungood when it's clear the celebrity in question has never been in the same room as a video game. Incite, bless it, was the greatest at pushing some B-rate nobody as a star and interviewing him about his "involvement" with a game.
Oh, end rant.
in previews, there are things that can (and may likely be) improved, and things that are considered fundamental flaws.
framerates, graphical glitches, UI, button assignments... that sort of thing you could bitch about, but write it with the disclaimer that it'll prob get cleaned up before the game's release.
the red light should go off when it comes to lack of major features (such as multiplayer), terrible controls/feel, awful art direction or design, or broken gameplay... these flaws are more fundamental and, imo, should be called out in any preview -- even if only as a plea to the developer to get it right.
framerates, graphical glitches, UI, button assignments... that sort of thing you could bitch about, but write it with the disclaimer that it'll prob get cleaned up before the game's release.
the red light should go off when it comes to lack of major features (such as multiplayer), terrible controls/feel, awful art direction or design, or broken gameplay... these flaws are more fundamental and, imo, should be called out in any preview -- even if only as a plea to the developer to get it right.
TheGreenGiant
Banned
well, the november EGM has 2 girls reviewing DKonga - they actually brought in this GUEST REVIEWER (chick) to help review the game. I felt it was a bit offensive. Rhythm games ain't for sissys + chicks. Everyone. I thought it was odd.
Some reviews some NOT review some type of games. From the sounds of it.. that Tommy fellow should NOT review Nintendo titles and any reviewer with bias against consoles (shame on you) should not review titles for that console.
games > console war
Some reviews some NOT review some type of games. From the sounds of it.. that Tommy fellow should NOT review Nintendo titles and any reviewer with bias against consoles (shame on you) should not review titles for that console.
games > console war
sonycowboy
Member
Disco Stu said:
Way too often, I think people are trying to pigeon hole this industry to be just like another, in this case, the movie industry. It's far more like the music industry to me. Hollywood is essentially controlled by the 6 major movie studios and they control our content. Yes, their are indie studios, but the reviews for those are so far out of wack, it's crazy. The indie films are many times available only for limited runs, in major cities.
For homogenized content like the movie industry, you can have an Ebert or whoever do all the reviews. Those movies are, budget-wise, required to have millions of people see that movie.
However, with video games, unless you're a major release, you're, many times talking about less that 100-200 thousand people that are the target audience. You have people who stick to established genres' like Fighting, Driving, FPS, RTS, Platformer, Music, etc. Many of those subgenres have a well defined audience and markedly different expectations for a game.
It would be like having one music reviewer doing Country, Rock, R&B/Soul, Hip Hop, easy listening, Ska, or what have you. It just doesn't work no matter how much you might say that good music is good music.
some good points. counter arguments, if I may:
what stu said.
what che said.
mostly used when dealing with japanese/overseas developers. it's unavoidable. from personal experience, pretty much every U.S. interview we do is via phone or in person.
though certainly a large number of them do, we can't assume that all of our readers keep up-to-date on the internet. and if it's big news, we can't let it go unreported without making comment on it. the job of the mag's news editor is to dig deeper into the story and get an angle that you can't get with online coverage.
agreed, but sometimes that's what readers want, and not everybody reads the same magazine.
agreed 100%. there's no place for this. how many mags actually do this, though?
you can't do a strategy in two pages, but you can pick out one facet of the game that might give people trouble. when I was handling 3 page strategies in the back of GMR, I would try to figure out where people might have problems, and instead of telling them exactly what to do, we gave tips and insight on how to play the game better, so that they can get past the troublespots themselves. but yeah, they are better served in full-fledged tips/codebooks and strat guides, and I'm glad that we're going to be phasing that out.
what stu said.
what che said.
mostly used when dealing with japanese/overseas developers. it's unavoidable. from personal experience, pretty much every U.S. interview we do is via phone or in person.
though certainly a large number of them do, we can't assume that all of our readers keep up-to-date on the internet. and if it's big news, we can't let it go unreported without making comment on it. the job of the mag's news editor is to dig deeper into the story and get an angle that you can't get with online coverage.
agreed, but sometimes that's what readers want, and not everybody reads the same magazine.
agreed 100%. there's no place for this. how many mags actually do this, though?
you can't do a strategy in two pages, but you can pick out one facet of the game that might give people trouble. when I was handling 3 page strategies in the back of GMR, I would try to figure out where people might have problems, and instead of telling them exactly what to do, we gave tips and insight on how to play the game better, so that they can get past the troublespots themselves. but yeah, they are better served in full-fledged tips/codebooks and strat guides, and I'm glad that we're going to be phasing that out.
rod furlong
Member
TheGreenGiant said:
No. Carrie has reviewed many games for EGM, and is on the staff of GMR. She's no more a "guest reviewer" than...Che Chou, toast of GAF!
She also has reviewed and enjoys rhythm/music/action games, and by the reasoning in your second paragraph, is perfectly qualified to review Konga.
skip said:
Um, that's exactly what the article itself actually said
He said instead of these pointless 4 page guides that are in the back of mags that try to overview everything, they should focus on what's going to give gamers the most trouble and go more in-depth with that, and ignore the other stuff that a bigger guide would work in.
I agree. I really feel like PC Gamer goes all-out in previews, which is one reason why I favor the magazine so much. They do gloss quite a bit, but always point out problems even if they do say things like "these issues should be addressed before release." At least they're trying.
sonycowboy
Member
chespace said:
See my wonderful analogy above.
Video Games <> MOVIES
Video Games ~= MUSIC
GDJustin said:Um, that's exactly what the article itself actually said
He said instead of these pointless 4 page guides that are in the back of mags that try to overview everything, they should focus on what's going to give gamers the most trouble and go more in-depth with that, and ignore the other stuff that a bigger guide would work in.
ah. cool, then!
sonycowboy said:See my wonderful analogy above.
Video Games <> MOVIES
Video Games ~= MUSIC
I would argue it's not wonderful.
Much of what is holding game criticism back is that it's fanboys reviewing what they like to play. A true critic is able to look objectively at a piece of work and dissect it regardless of its genre or inclination.
This specialization is why everybody complains when, say, a supposed Final Fantasy fan reviews Fable.
When game critics are considered such -- and not just "the RPG guy" or the "sports guy" -- then the medium will have taken a step forward.
And yes -- some games require more intricate knowledge as they attempt to capture realism in one form or another -- but part of a critic's job is to be well versed enough on the subject matter to properly issue criticism of it (and this includes all the ancillary material, too).
sonycowboy
Member
Disco Stu said:
1) If a person is really a Final Fantasy Fan to the exlusion of other RPG's, they shouldn't be a reviewer in the first place.
2) With over 800 games released every year, which equates to many.many more thousands of play hours, I think it's unrealistic to think that one person can be so "well versed".
I'd agree that for the MAJOR releases just about everyone can have a legitimate take, but for many of the other releases, most reviewers seem to be doing a disservice to the developers and most importantly the readers with their reviews. I have seen wayyyy too many reviewers start off a review by saying, "this really wasn't my type of game", "I'm not a big sports guy", admit they no ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the subject matter, or something along those lines.
Duckhuntdog
Member
Jonnyboy117
Member
One solution to the preview gloss problem is what we've done at PGC. Our previews are completely factual, completely objective. Often they are based on publisher information or seeing the game on another platform that we don't cover. Then we have hands-on impressions, which are like early reviews. These can be highly opinionated, personal, and honest. We still limit viciousness in impressions, out of fairness to the incomplete game, but it's in this format that we can frankly say, "The controls are completely terrible and need major reworking before the game is shipped."
WarPig said:
lol, that's kind of where i stopped too.
trust me, getting stuck on a bus from disney tokyo back to the city with brandon sheffield was enough to convince me never to visit insert credit again, no matter how much he name drops derrida in a viewtiful joe review.
fennec fox
ferrets ferrets ferrets ferrets FERRETS!!!
All the media he mentions as healthy are either boring (Gamestm, Insertcredit) or enraging (Chick). Plus, he wants a video-game version of Spin or Rolling Stone yet later on calls the idea of a "gaming lifestyle" bullshit? Huh?
Disco Stu said:
I dunno. I feel a certain kinship with him, because we both have moderate to severe verbosity issues and we both like to say "fuck" for no particularly good reason.
fennec fox said:
I've often found that kind of sentiment is code for "I want to buy a game magazine without people laughing at me like I'm some kind of goddamn videogame nerd."
DFS.
Mr Nash
square pies = communism
2. The Preview Gloss (It's never bad in previews, only in reviews)
We've gotten to the point where we just put the fact sheet in point form and make it blindingly obvious that it's from the spin doctors, then follow it up with comments on what's been presented thus far. To many places just paraphrase fact sheets and move on.
3. The Email Interview
I hate having to do these things by email. Half the time you have to ride peoples' asses to get them back. I understand the team is busy, but they're returned so slowly half the time that they've lost all relevancy by the time they hit our inbox.
4. Yesterday's News (Internet does news, mags do rehash)
This should be obvious. If I'm going to buy a mag it's for a feature article/interview, and that's it. Magazine lead times are not conducive to covering the news stories.
5. Copy Cat Features (many previews/reviews look exactly the same)
It's not so much that all the features are the same as it is that they're all so bloody uninspired. Even editorials at most places make me blind in one eye they're so boring. People talking about patches, violence in games, too many sequels. *sigh*
6. The "Look what we got!" Stories (the swag bribe)
I never much understood bragging about this stuff. From a business point of view wouldn't it be better to have giveaways for the nifty swag? I'm sure the readers would appreciate it, and it would generate a lot of buzz for the site. Hell, we have some signed goodies from a certain RPG developer, and we have every intention of giving it away.
7. Summary Strategies (magazine can't do strategy guides in 2 pages)
If I want strategy guides I'll go to Gamefaqs.com, thanks.
We've gotten to the point where we just put the fact sheet in point form and make it blindingly obvious that it's from the spin doctors, then follow it up with comments on what's been presented thus far. To many places just paraphrase fact sheets and move on.
3. The Email Interview
I hate having to do these things by email. Half the time you have to ride peoples' asses to get them back. I understand the team is busy, but they're returned so slowly half the time that they've lost all relevancy by the time they hit our inbox.
4. Yesterday's News (Internet does news, mags do rehash)
This should be obvious. If I'm going to buy a mag it's for a feature article/interview, and that's it. Magazine lead times are not conducive to covering the news stories.
5. Copy Cat Features (many previews/reviews look exactly the same)
It's not so much that all the features are the same as it is that they're all so bloody uninspired. Even editorials at most places make me blind in one eye they're so boring. People talking about patches, violence in games, too many sequels. *sigh*
6. The "Look what we got!" Stories (the swag bribe)
I never much understood bragging about this stuff. From a business point of view wouldn't it be better to have giveaways for the nifty swag? I'm sure the readers would appreciate it, and it would generate a lot of buzz for the site. Hell, we have some signed goodies from a certain RPG developer, and we have every intention of giving it away.
7. Summary Strategies (magazine can't do strategy guides in 2 pages)
If I want strategy guides I'll go to Gamefaqs.com, thanks.
Duckhuntdog
Member
Bah. Brian Hook is a nice guy, he really humbled out. I think he has a lot of good design ideas.
I actually long for the days of the old Next Generation... even though their reviews weren't that good and extremely hypocritical, you couldn't beat them for features. The history of Ultima, the great interviews, were all fantastic. Nowadays, game mags are too much like Maxim, like the PS2 Swimsuit Issue in PSM (oh brother...). XBN is a pretty decent mag - I'm not really interested in the Xbox scene, but there are some cool things with it (I love the thing where they show game developers games that influenced their titles and ask them about them)... I get the mag for free for some reason (must've been a friend of Che in a previous life or something), so it's even better