Support NeoGAF

[FortNinety]

Here's a message to everyone who dislikes Halverson, thinks Play (like every magazine he's done before) is just glossy rubbish, and is able to view Gamefan without rose colored glasses: give it up. People just don't want to hear it. Lord knows I spend quite a bit of time on the pre-Neo GAF trying to prove why Halverson is a continual blight on the world of video game journalism.

By the way, I love how some people here find that term somehow funny. Has it dawned onto these folks that some people might actually take pride in something they are a part of, and therefore choose to take it seriously?

The guy has his supporters, much like members of a cult, who proudly laugh at the truth and cold hard facts (like that one guy who used to be an editor or writer or something, but later became a priest, and when Gamefan debates came up, he had the audacity to bring up his faith as a means to derail or win arguments... I'm sure you know whom I'm talking about), hence why I really don't bother getting involved in Halverson related arguments anymore. I think the whole world knows how horrible a writer/interviewer/reviewer/business person he is, and I'm almost certain his fans do as well, but just won't admit it publically.

 

[Tellaerin]

FortNinety, you've been letting the world know how you feel about Dave Halverson and GameFan for as long as I can remember. My question to you is this: If Play folded tomorrow and Halverson and company vanished off the face of the earth, how would that benefit the rest of us? Aside from any personal satisfaction you'd derive from that scenario, please explain to me how anyone would be better off.

 

[Mr_Furious]

Here's a message to everyone who dislikes Halverson, thinks Play (like every magazine he's done before) is just glossy rubbish, and is able to view Gamefan without rose colored glasses: give it up. People just don't want to hear it. Lord knows I spend quite a bit of time on the pre-Neo GAF trying to prove why Halverson is a continual blight on the world of video game journalism.

By the way, I love how some people here find that term somehow funny. Has it dawned onto these folks that some people might actually take pride in something they are a part of, and therefore choose to take it seriously?

The guy has his supporters, much like members of a cult, who proudly laugh at the truth and cold hard facts (like that one guy who used to be an editor or writer or something, but later became a priest, and when Gamefan debates came up, he had the audacity to bring up his faith as a means to derail or win arguments... I'm sure you know whom I'm talking about), hence why I really don't bother getting involved in Halverson related arguments anymore. I think the whole world knows how horrible a writer/interviewer/reviewer/business person he is, and I'm almost certain his fans do as well, but just won't admit it publically.

Or maybe the rest of us honestly don't give a shit. Play covers the rest of the games the mainstream mags don't which is why I give it the time of day -- nothing more -- nothing less. The quality of the magazine is unmatched IF you don't read opinions expressed therein. Great artwork and great quality screenshots plus interesting interviews with industry people other mags don't care to talk to (but should).

BTW, I happen to be in the video game biz and yet I still won't take mags seriously. There's plenty of other more serious bullshit that happens behind the scenes at various publications people should care about than some unbias tool who happens to like almost everything.

 

[FortNinety]

FortNinety, you've been letting the world know how you feel about Dave Halverson and GameFan for as long as I can remember. My question to you is this: If Play folded tomorrow and Halverson and company vanished off the face of the earth, how would that benefit the rest of us? Aside from any personal satisfaction you'd derive from that scenario, please explain to me how anyone would be better off.

I honestly feel answering such a question (which I think is a good one, btw) is something I should take my time to do, but on the other hand, I feel I should address it immediately, for a variety of reasons, so here it goes...

I've always felt that Gamefan's legacy, which Play perptuates, is a form and style of writing which I am not a fan of.

Now, fans of the magazine are quick to point that the reason why they love the magazine is because it speaks to them. And every group needs a voice, right? Well, the thing is... I consider myself a member of his audience. The person who likes quirky Japanese games. The gamer who strongly prefers platformers. The one who enjoys seeing nice, detailed concept art from the game. The guy who wants to hear from some no name developer. The person who enjoys anime. I'm a video game fan boy and Play is my magazine... or should be.

But as a member of that certain demographic, I think we deserve better. A person who's more honest. A person who realizes that he has an opportunity to shed light on the truth, and chooses to do so, instead of further dividing his readers and adding fuel to the fires of asinine arguments. A guy, when he's asking a developer whom I truly respect, and yet the rest of the world doesn't even really know exists, doesn't come off as a mindless ass kisser. I want a magazine that speaks to me and which spreads the gospel, yet I won't be embarrassed to be caught reading in public or by a girl that I'm seeing.

But if Halverson and Play were to just vanish, would something better automatically take his place? Of course not. It's not like his magazine has corner any kind of niche.

Back to the Halverson method of writing... the idea of video game journalism is a joke in certain circles, and while his magazines are by no means singlehandedly responsible for this, they still are a contributor. And people follow by example, so we have many people who want to get into the field of writing about video games, and they choose to imitate what they see as a means to do so.

Now I'm not advocating that the way EGM, Game Informer, Gamepro, or any other major publication writes about or reviews games is the "right" way. Far from it. In fact, I'm a big follower of "post modern" game criticism (the kind of thing which I know might make a certain portion of the GAF audience groan, but hey, I can understand the reaction). I think the best example was a review for Manhunt from 1UP.com which made quite the waves are here when it came out. The emphasis was not breaking down the graphics, the sounds, and the length into some abstract number or letter grade, but talking about the experience of playing the game, and exploring the emotions and the sensations.

And the funny thing is, a lot of those early Gamefan articles almost did the same thing. They tended to gloss over the "bad" graphics and levels that were too "short" or "easy" in favor of simply discussing the joys of playing the game. While that sounds great on paper (and is a philosophy Gamefan fans constant repeat to themselves), the problem I have with this is the lack of consistency. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but if the opinions have no ebb and flow, then they're practically worthless, at least in the context of using them as guidelines to judge something, which is the very criteria of an opinionated review. And this lack of consistency is a sign of, at least in my eyes, a lack of responsibility for one's work and profession. And the thing is, people look at Halverson's work as an example to follow. And can I honestly blame them?

I find it interesting how many will say "I don't read Play for the reviews or the articles." Then what are these people reading the magazine for? The pretty pictures? I must admit, at times they are pretty (and I'm not talking about the pathetic overuse of sex, which I know he's not the only one guilty of, but still, though that's for another time). But that's still a pretty sad statement.... people support a magazine, who's very purpose is for the spreading of information, freely admit to the content being worthless. This is how you create content?

So perhaps its out of anger, or maybe even jealously, but the knowledge that someone can build an empire out of sloppy writing and unprofessional... even unethical.... behavior, can manage to procure financing to lead three different magazine, which even I have to admit is more than a little "inspirational", is why I care not for the man nor his publication.

 

[gofreak]

Kingdom Under Fire looked great in a preview I saw a little while back. I've not heard much on it since, so this is good news.

 

[ferricide]

Play covers the rest of the games the mainstream mags don't which is why I give it the time of day -- nothing more -- nothing less.

oh, really? that bloodrayne 2 cover ... =)

seriously, though, what games do you not see being covered elsewhere that play covers? i mean, i know EGM gives short shrift to some hardcore-er games, but i know we (GMR) like to point out some of the neater shit and give it some play (4 page SMT: nocturne preview, 2 page digital devil saga preview, katamari damacy import report before it was announced for the US, etc.)

but even ignoring that, play seems to cover mostly the same games as everyone else. its covers tend to sometimes go for games other magazines wouldn't give cover features to, but i don't think they're always particularly exciting ones (voodoo vince?)

 

[disabledHeliocentric]

Play is the only mag where the first thing I read is the editorial. I don't read it in egm most of the time(I forgot they had editorials). Game Informer's editorials are sorry. I think starting from the first page it becomes clear that Play has strong personalies(or should that read a strong personality?) and quirks, but that does set it apart. And in fact what bugs me about play is when they run these generic feature stories that are using the same pics and stuff as previous GI issues.
Sometimes the reviews and opinions expressed in Play reek of overtness, ranging from contrarian to fanboyism to plain odd. I guess I'd like a little more advancement from Play in that regard. Although, an outrageous opinion can be good for a laugh and that's probably the only reason I read the magazine.

 

[wipeout364]

EGM editorials are useless they deal with nothing and express no strong opinions.

PLAY is a decent magazine, great photos, some interesting slants, nice developer interviews. The reviews are difficult to trust though, but I think this stems from the fact that they are really assessing the game on a grade basis and that each of the reviewers basically has different tastes. I don't get the impression they are thinking of the people reading the magazine. When they review it is simply a statement of what they thought of the game, so if you do not have the same taste the review is useless. Halverson in particular gives high marks to platformers, and hammers tony hawk type games. BRady has his favorite genres too.

I buy PLAY on a regular basis and really it is one of the few magazines that actually feels like it is written by gamers for a mature audience. XBN has this feel as well, GMR sometimes has it. EGM seems seems quite Blah to me for some reason, I buy it but I feel it basically has no character, its layouts are boring, and has no real soul, there are also a few guys at EGM who really should probably go (not you though MacD you need to contribute more).

 

[Drinky Crow]

Reading play is like reading a messageboard, only minus the 10% genuinely entertaining and over-the-top personalities. Well, Dave is over-the-top -- after all, he *is* the guy who puts the dice in the peanut butter and jelly sandwich of industry coverage -- but he's really sad in a sort of rusting, 80's-era Camaro kind of way.

What ferricide said is spot on: Play's coverage doesn't really differ from that of the mainstream mags (outside of the anime section, which is embarassingly sex-obsessed) save that they geek it up exponentially by emphasizing cartoon/rendered titties and hyping the artifacts of Halverson's completely apocryphal tastes in gaming. Granted, it's nice that they offer good quality paper and screenshots, presumably at their expense, and it's nice to see the latest GTA clone get a two-page spread instead of eight, but that really doesn't compensate for the largely noxious high-school quality of writing, the juvenile obsession with blatant sexual imagery, and the inarticulacy of Halverson's mercurial agenda. (Aside: although I rarely agree with his opinions, Brady Fiechter is a good writer; a pity Halverson gets most of the page count instead.)

The PC game coverage is truly cringeworthy, too.

play is a monomaniacal exercise in the yuckiest and most self-righteous aspects of gamerdom. They want to be the "voice of the real gamer", but as a whole the magazine is incapable of criticism, and at the end of the day, the coverage seems based more on tits-per-screen and some sort of mealy-mouthed gabbling over 2D, "artistry", and whatever console preference can currrently be self-justified (largely based on the number of developers for said console who'll give Dave the chance to work his ass-kissing).

Then again, if this board is any indicator, maybe they get the "hardcore gamer" better than I do.

 

[Drinky Crow]

I buy PLAY on a regular basis and really it is one of the few magazines that actually feels like it is written by gamers for a mature audience.

So the absolute excess of titty-tastic art assets, garish color schemes, and pedobait anime inserts strikes you as particularly mature?