EGM January 2005 (digital) - scores included! DOAU BOMB BOMB
- Thread starter tracky_dacks
- Start date
Anything more than a TWO for Auto Modellista is an indication of high-level moneyhattery, as far as I'm concerned. 
Speaking from the dev/publisher side of things, I can confirm that cover negotiations *usually* boil down to the month and what art assets are going to be used. That's about it.
Speaking from the dev/publisher side of things, I can confirm that cover negotiations *usually* boil down to the month and what art assets are going to be used. That's about it.
The Bookerman
Member
Wrong.
Don't believe it.
I know more, but I won't tell - ng. Good to see you quoting and answering the substantive part of my post, yeah.AbeFroman said:
It is what preceded the Goldeneye review and the space afforded the review that I'm questioning more than the actual review scores, I think you knew that anyway. Now where'd that bong go...
That combination of merit and "reader interest" can't be weighted much towards merit. Taiko is "awesome", LoTR is "booooring". Taiko gets a measly twenty words and doesn't get a review score while Third Age gets a two page spread. Jury, I rest that case.rod furlong said:
"Reader interest"? Ace Combat 4 sold well into seven figures and is popular among the enthusiast crowd but gets half the space of LoTR:TA. Iirc Return of the King didn't match up in sales to AC4, despite being multi-platform and being released at the height of the trilogy ending hype. "Reader interest" here just seems a synonym for, nah... I'm honestly not trying to make easy, misjudged, individual accusations. Just giving you one readers perception of how dodgy these decisions can look. Can you see why someone can get the impression that other games are being shat on for LoTR, a game featured on the cover, had a seven page preview, had a graphic likening Gandalf to Pac-Man, Mario and Sonic on gamings evolutionary map and is being published by EGM's biggest revenue earner?
So individual readership opinion doesn't matter just the purported collective, maybe the mythical collective, its an easy get out. Analogy time. EGM is the political party in power (hypothetical since GI would be). Your latest policy reviews starts and emphasises CoD:FH. Now the special interest group, let's call 'em ATVI, just random naming there, that is associated and benefits from CoD:FH being pushed through first and highlighted by EGM also funds EGM via a contribution, say a four page pull-out ad in the latest party circular. This gives the perception, in political parlance, of certain goings on.
That this reader notices you've given the initial review in the holiday and January issues, presumably the largest selling since 40% of all games are sold at this time, to the biggest single holiday title of the two biggest US listed games companies is almost certainly a totally abnormal response by the general "reader". That these two companies just happen to be stressing critical appraisal of their games to financial analysts of these billion dollar companies more and more is a thought that unfortunately pops into this insignificant readers head. Now ridicule all you like.
Thank you for the detailed answer. Only one of my scattergun of initial queries was about the final review scores and the question was about its uniformity, both scores and text, rather than opinion (assholes, everyone has one).skip said:
I could see why VU/Blizzard want an ad for WoW in the middle of an EQ cover story, and I notice the latest issue has a prominent six page WoW ad! Ridiculously flippant and easy connections I admit but they're there. I'm not saying there is any systematic connection between content and promotion in ZD magazines. I fully understand why the promotional activity needs to be run alongside the content. Yet allocation of space and amount of promotion... that thunking at the back of this loonies head is thinking there is a connection.
EA have already said Goldeneye has been a, relative, failure. So the "big game of interest" to (GMR?) readers doesn't click, the "we don't have the space" response always seems weak to me. Magazines can afford blown up pics and multiple people reviewing single games from big companies and have double page spreads for celeb gamers but don't even run a half page review for good console games from smaller firms. That just doesn't seem right, yes there is a commerical imperative for it to take place but this seems to be at the cost of critical credibility.
Thanks, darling.D2M15 said:
Sorry if I've hurt any feelings or thrown around some silly accusations but my tongue biting about this digital copy of EGM I've been getting regularly (blame Wario64!) for the past nine months has been grating. With EGMs GE:RA coverage, mainly the non-critical preview when it was known there'd be no review before release, my many times bitten tongue had to be unleashed with the games analysis.
cja said:
:lol
It'd be too obvious? That's a new one. I suppose any bad score we've given EA games in the past (recently, off the top of my head, LOTR:TTA) was just to throw clever snoops like yourself off the scent? DAMN YOU CJA :shakes fist:
Seriosuly though, a few factoids back at ya (this is for cja, everyone else, this is the same boring crap, feel free to skip it
:-No one at EGM knows what the other reviewers are going to give a game before they decide on their score. In fact, reviewers aren't supposed to talk to each other about the game (critically) before they -all- decide their scores. (After the scores are decided, reviewers sometimes read each other's text to change their own to address things the other didn't or address a disagreement or agreement between reviewers, sometimes not.)
-We don't have any idea what's going on in the ad side of things, and we like it that way. This isn't a crazy assumption, I've heard of it happening, but never at EGM or any of the Ziff mags I've worked with.
-Like all game mags, we give things space based on what we think people want to read about. Sometimes, we think more people want to read about a high-profile game (say, LOTR:TTA), even if its a negative review, than a niche import we think is good. The facts of life. Sales numbers is only one consideration in guaging interest. Look at the coverage we give Madden every year, even though it's one of the best-selling and best-reviewed games, and think about it. Sometimes, yes, we crusade for something we think is a worthy cause, but sometimes it comes down to limited pages and simple math.
-EGM does negative previews when we feel it's justified. Timing on reviews and previews is largely out of our hands. If we can't review a game on time, sometimes we'll mention it in review wrap-up, sometimes we'll give it one last preview (on the thinking that it's about to come out, so readers' interest in the game is peaking), sometimes both, sometimes neither. It can be cause a game gets delayed, or we expected to get a reviewable that didn't come in, or we don't have the space, or we forget, or we just decide its not worth it for whatever reason. In the case of RA I honestly don't know which it was, but maybe the reason the preview wasn't critical is -we didn't think the game deserved it-. Read my earlier post or the reviews in the new issue to find out why.
-edit: The fact that EA called Goldeneye "a failure" in terms of sales is in no way evidence to how much interest there was in reading about the game, especially before release.
"I'm honestly not trying to make easy, misjudged, individual accusations. Just giving you one readers perception of how dodgy these decisions can look."
I understand how it can look, but you seem like a smart guy...if you stop and really think about what you are saying and the assumptions it carries, or take in ALL the evidence, without being selective or twisitng it to your argument (ie "that would be too obvious," and EA's failure statement, both above), I think you'll see it's pretty ridiculous. You may disagree with us about what the majority of EGM readers want to read about, but that doesn't mean we're taking bribes.
Soul4ger said:
Not in full, no. It's largely the developers' fault for focusing on a niche audience. However, on the rare occasions when more accessible fighting games (like DOA: U) do come along, reviews by hardcore fighting game enthusiasts would lead the average person to believe that those games are lacking. Someone with a passing interest in the genre would probably end up not bothering with those games after reading the reviews, not realizing that the reviewers labelling the gameplay 'flawed' are judging it by enthusiast standards. That doesn't help keep the genre alive and bring in new blood, either. =/
As far as review scores go, well... You know 7.5 is pretty good, and I know 7.5 is pretty good, but if there's anything GAF's convinced me of, it's that the average person has an exceptionally fucked-up perception of what game scores are supposed to mean. I mean, just a couple of days back, Olimario posted about a certain section of Metroid Prime 2 'saving' the game from being an 8/10 experience, as if an 8 meant mediocre. True, that's an extreme case (I hope...), but it does lead me to wonder how many people are going to see those 7.5's and say, 'Ehhh, I was kinda interested in this, but between the stuff about it not measuring up to 'real' fighting games and that score, it sounds like they didn't like it too much. I think I'll pass.' Sadder things have happened. =/
The reviewers, yes: editor-in-chief, executive editor and reviews editor. I guess that was an entirely random decision, that while all other games in the issue had at least one oddball from other parts of ZD or freelancer Goldeneye was getting special treatment. If a magazine wanted to fix a score it'd be the people in the position of responsibilty who would do that.MarkMacD said::lol
It'd be too obvious? That's a new one. I suppose any bad score we've given EA games in the past (recently, off the top of my head, LOTR:TTA) was just to throw clever snoops like yourself off the scent? DAMN YOU CJA :shakes fist:
Seriosuly though, a few factoids back at ya (this is for cja, everyone else, this is the same boring crap, feel free to skip it
-No one at EGM knows what the other reviewers are going to give a game before they decide on their score. In fact, reviewers aren't supposed to talk to each other about the game (critically) before they -all- decide their scores. (After the scores are decided, reviewers sometimes read each other's text to change their own to address things the other didn't or address a disagreement or agreement between reviewers, sometimes not.)
"Reviewers aren't supposed to", "(critically)," heh. I know the review policies, you've kindly typed 'em out before on GAF, thanks. Of course these review policies have never been broken.
There is no need to know whats going on in the ad side from day-to-day, week-to-week or month-to-month, just the general trend to be biased towards certain games or publishers for ulterior reasons.
If I worked for EA public relations I wouldn't lose much sleep about raising a red flag over the lack of a Tiger Woods DS review, or poor scores for an already lost cause such as Catwoman or the amount of space afforded Madden. I would care about raising a red flag over Goldeneye, the score for Madden and the amount of space given to a new, different genre, LoTR or other franchise title. Convenient.
"that would be too obvious", it would! If any magazine had reviewed GE:RA weeks before any other and given it significantly higher scores than subsequent reviews they'd get ripped a new ahole.
"ALL the evidence", there is a large body of evidence that is out of the ordinary:
1. Review after release.
2. Failure to point out a delay in a games review.
3. Give an, uncritical, promotional, preview in release month.
4. The same score from three reviewers.
5. A score far higher than the average the game has received.
6. Three reviewers of editorial standing.
7. Giving a game with such scores a two page spread.
8. No disagreement between reviewers.
I dunno about looking at ALL the evidence but I think I'm looking at a lot.
Tellaerin said:
Unfortunately, I can't change the review scale, and we'd be off to hell in a handbasket much faster if I scored games with the dumbest motherfuckers in the audience in mind ^_^
The solution, IMO, is to shitcan a 1-10 scale, but we've been down that road a lot lately, I think.
DFS.
Unison said:
That's only half the problem, though, if that. My point is that even if reviewers use the scale that way, readers are gonna perceive it differently. The ingrained reactions to a 10- or 100-point scale we get from school, ya know? And never mind the fact that we just don't need that many graduations on the scale anyway.
DFS.
rod furlong
Member
cja said:
Shit. You got us. Here everyone at EA PR was doing cartwheels cause our plan to boost game sales by giving their game 7.5s after release was working perfectly, and you figured it out.
When you ignore all the stuff I've said, selectively choose to shut out or twist things around, parse it down into tiny, insignificant bits, look past how things work in the real world, and abandon common sense like that, well it's just obvious (but not too obvious!).
I might as well come clean and tell you that the UPC code on the front of the issue is actually the number to the Swiss bank account where EA wires us ad pages and hush money.
"We would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for that meddling insane kid on the internet!"
When you ignore all the stuff I've said, selectively choose to shut out or twist things around, parse it down into tiny, insignificant bits, look past how things work in the real world, and abandon common sense like that, well it's just obvious (but not too obvious!).
I might as well come clean and tell you that the UPC code on the front of the issue is actually the number to the Swiss bank account where EA wires us ad pages and hush money.
"We would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for that meddling insane kid on the internet!"
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
Tellaerin said:
The "hardcore" fighting game community at times seems like one of the most entirely fscked up. I don't wanna sound dramatic, but it seems like there are so many "prima dona" types, rabid sports-style fanboys who are hostile to anything other than their team (their chosen game), and stuff like game reviews? Fugheddaboutit! For example, even though DoA is really more accessible to the average gamer, it's reputation as the "simple-minded" 3D fighter is ludicrously exaggerated. Hit up places like http://www.doacentral.com and check out the conversations about DoA's actual depth - it's accessible yes, but actually makes a good "trainer" as a fighting game because it's easy to get into but can go fairly deep. A lot of the reviewers who dismiss DoA as a poor-man's fighting game also, I can't help but suspect, are not hardcore themselves. They're just looking at the hardcore community and aping the opinions of self-proclaimed experts in order to give their reviews a greater ring of authority.
Tellaerin said:
Part of the problem may be, that the basic scoring scale that goes from 1 - 10 and 1% to 100% has baggage attatched to it. Look at movie reviews and http://www.rottentomatoes.com - A movie has to get around a "7" before it's even considered not crap by the standards of their percentage meter. How many times has anyone really seen "1.5" and "3.8" used commonly for games (or anything else on a 10/100 scale)? Usually those scores show up primarily when a reviewer wants to make a point about a truly hideous game, one that is a literal waste a disc. Games that are regularly scored 4-6 or even 7 however, often seem only slightly better than those 1.5's.
Generally, I think there's a whole lot of games out there right now, which should be much more spread out across the scale than they are. People (including reviewers) percieve the magic "9.0" as the barrier a game must break through to become TEH AWESOME and not TEH ONLY OK. Anymore, I think scores are given which are forced to float within an 8.8 - 9.8 range in order to communicate "this game is truly great!" with a simple number. Hell, some people seem to consider the difference between an 8.7 and 8.8 like the grand canyon
One of the negative effects this all has, IMHO, is to impart improper and misleading gloss to games which don't deserve it, and steal credit from the rare game that does deserve a really, really high score. "When all games are 9.2, no game will be special!" There are many games which I feel should have a 7, 7.5, or 8.0, which all have 9+. It's funny and my mind may be playing tricks on me, but I remember back in the day of earlier Gamefan, EGM, and Video Games & Computer Entertainment, scores in the 7s (or the equivilent) didn't have such an awful perception. A game that was REALLY dead average, got a 5. A 6 was above average, and a 7 was were the territory of a truly great game began. Then over time, everything slowly got pushed up and bunched together.
All this is, of course, debates over ultimately arbitrary and meaningless number values. But people give those values objective traits by how they regard them and allow them to afffect their opinions and decisions...
Kaijima said:
It varies from outfit to outfit. I do know some folks in the editorial side of things who can walk the walk with contemporary fighters, though -- Jeff Gerstmann's legitimately real good at Tekken, Shawn Elliot (ex-EGM) was a serious Soul Calibur II player, Ben Turner can mop up most folks at Guilty Gear. Jeremy Dunham's a real good Tekken player, too. Most of the Ziff crew was good at VF4 when that hit. I suck at everything, but I'll freely admit that.
For what it's worth, I don't find DOA2 a flawed game so much as I just find it an old one. I liked it a hell of a lot back in 2000.
DFS.
Kabuki Waq
Member
Which version of ghost recon did they review?