This is going to be a long post. And I'd like to point out in advance that I'm not criticizing AVault, nor am I calling into question the quality of the magazine in any respect, except perhaps its judgment in running this story. That said:

I can't help but question the value of a story such as this.

AVault, in many ways, is in direct competition with the magazines it is discussing, or at least with the associated online components. And, to a lesser extent, the print magazines themselves with regard to advertising revenue (as pointed out in the news story here at Qt3). There's no possibility the story isn't affected by this fact.

That said, the author obviously went out of his way to be even-handed and unbiased. But that's as much of a problem. If you're holding back on criticism because you're aware of its inherent bias then the story is of little use to the reader.

AVault isn't a media watchdog. When Jim Romensko's MediaNews criticizes news outlets, it's interesting because that's the thrust of the site. Conversely, if Brill's Content began writing political coverage, its watchdog status would be compromised.

I remember a few years back when David Israels' Bay Guardian piece got everyone in our industry up in arms. Editors tried to band together to ostracize him for daring that maybe, on occasion, our ethics were compromised. It didn't last for two reasons. 1) No one cared. 2) He was mostly right.

Again, though, the source was the reason the story lost validity. Not that Israels' was a bad source, just that he was acting as a media watchdog while trying to compete with the magazines he criticized.

It's one of the reasons that freelancers criticizing magazines, sites, or writers in public forums really rankles me. You get paid by one outlet, and so criticizing another outlet goes beyond subjective complaint - it becomes advertising.

In the early days, Gamecenter would consistently criticize GameSpot in print, and not in a healthy, friendly way. I have quotes that were downright hostile. I always felt it was innappropriate, and it created a sense of unhealthy competition that made the joining of the two a more surreal pairing than any outsider could ever imagine.

The gaming press, or what's left of it, could use some sort of watchdog. It would raise the quality, and make people aware that occasionally they slip up. I just don't know if it's appropriate for the sites, magazines, or writers to watchdog each other.

I know that some of my points may seem hypocritical. The overall point of my post, though, is not to criticize individual sites or magazines. I just want to get some healthy discussion going about watchdogging and our little industry.

I was more disappointed by the fact that despite a fair amount of numerical data, the article really said nothing. It also got no information from the advertisers in terms of how THEY perceive advertising and what they expect from it in terms of coverage by the publications they buy it from. I'm not saying that I could do it better -- I'm simply saying that as a proper investigative article it falls kind of flat.

As for it being inappropriate for AVault to run this sort of article, I agree it seems off, although it would have been much worse had it run in one of the print mags. I also agree that one of the reasons the article probably didn't touch the advertisers themselves is that they don't want to mess up any relationships at AVault.

The problem with an entity that watches over trade publications is that the atmosphere is simply too close to allow for real freedom of information. There simply isn't much investigative journalism. Writers are really at the mercy of publishers with regard to information about games that are in development, since the disclosure of information that the publisher doesn't want known can lead to that writer losing contacts, writing opportunities, and income. When the game companies that are the subjects of scrutiny are the sole advertisers, an atmosphere is created where certain things are off-limits. Most companies accept that bad reviews are a part of the business, but reviews are just one part of game publications, and a lot of other stuff is untouchable.

I was actually planning to write an article like this an run it on my personal website, but when I started writing a column for CGW I decided it would have been inappropriate no matter what I said. So I dropped the idea.

What would you like to see a watchdog group do, Ron? What would they scrutinize? (That's an honest question, and is not meant sarcastically, btw.)

Though I participated, I did express some concern over the article with the writer. I pointed out they should have disclosed the conflict-of-interest, that they are competing editorially and for advertising dollars with magazines, which signals to the reader that there is the potential for bias in the article.

(I thought one of the questions they sent was funny, because it hinted that magazines are more succeptible to advertiser influence because we take in a lot of money... where was Avault 18 months ago when every website was taking in big-time ad revenue? Did they ask that same question at that time?)

And the methodology is flawed when comparing reviews. Who's to say PC Gamer isn't more "right" with its ratings, and more in tune with the opinions of their readers? Apparently their readers aren't that upset.

Plus, there's no baseline for comparison; I recommended they use their own site, though I suspect I know why they didn't (Avault historically has had the highest ratings of all game sites; I tracked their average rating for a year at about 4.2/5). But that's not to say they're "wrong" or anyone else is "right".

But I do agree the article was pointless; if someone (not a competitor) wants to "review" magazines, they need to focus on more abstract ways of measuring the content. Using ratings or ad/edit pages really tells you nothing. Depth can't merely be measured by average article length or word counts.

And Bruce, I don't think there's little investigative journalism in the industry solely because the relationships are too close. I think it's due in part because the writers don't have the skill to do these types of pieces and readers haven't shown much desire to read them. Writers aren't affected by their relationships with publishers since they rarely get articles on their own; they typically receive an assignment from the magazine, then contact the publisher. If the publisher refuses to cooperate with the writer, the article dies on the vine, which is their loss, not the magazine's. This is one benefit of print; I have a limited number of pages so they have significant value to publishers. If they want to receive coverage, they have to cooperate with the writer assigned the piece. (And I've had some companies protest about certain writers, and I make it explicitly clear that we select the writers, not them, and if they do not wish to cooperate we will not get a new writer just to make them happy.)

Brill's Content actually ran a piece about game magazines and gave us good marks. I think it was because I was very honest with the writer and talked to him at length (nothing like pointing out how we were the indie upstart against the big boys of publishing).

>>I don't think there's little investigative journalism in the industry solely because the relationships are too close. I think it's due in part because the writers don't have the skill to do these types of pieces and readers haven't shown much desire to read them.<<

Oh, absolutely. Which is why I pointed out that I don't necessarily think I could have done a better job. As Mark Asher pointed out in some other thread, the writers in this industry (myself included) are not trained journalists. They're game hobbyists who do freelance writing. If that article showed anything, it was how just asking a bunch of questions and gathering some data doesn't make an investigative article. But the relationship between magazines and publications is another big factor.

But like I said to Ron, I really question what a games industry watchdog would do. Point out when a game magazine publishes a positive preview of a game that ends up being bad? Big news. "Suggest" that a positive review of a game might not reflect the actual quality of the game? "Mark Asher said that so-and-so is a 4.5-star game but he FAILED TO MENTION THE BUGGY MULTIPLAYER! And the publisher advertises in that magazine!" That would hardly be worthwhile criticism, and in any case I don't think anyone really cares. So much of games coverage is simply opinions about games that the watchdog would essentially be reduced to inferring conflicts of interest rather than actually finding them.

Worthwhile criticism of gaming magazines lies elsewhere. For example, I'd be glad to write an article about how turning a major magazine's hardware section into its editor's own cult of personality is stupid, but that's not watchdogging -- that's my editorial opinion.

Media watchdogs are so valuable in mainstream news reporting because of the assertion that news is objectively and factually reported. The watchdogs are important when they show how purported "facts" (or how they are assembled and presented, and what is included and what is not) might have been influenced by factors unknown to the reader. So little of game magazine content is news, and so much *relies* on the reporter's opinion (reviews) that I just don't see what a games industry watchdog would do.

Do you recall which issue of Brill's that was that covered gaming mags? I subscribe but don't recall seeing this article. (Although I must admit that I haven't read the magazine cover-to-cover for a while, as I think its quality has slipped.)

Here are links to both the Brill's article and the infamous David Israels article.

Computer Games in Brill's

Perils of Playola

"I really question what a games industry watchdog would do."

And you're probably right. It's a rare thing when a computer or video game magazine breaks from the accepted formula to a degree where it warrants analysis.

That said, I'd still love to see some thoughtful analysis of games writing. It may not be deserving of a regular outlet, but even the occasional article on the subject makes for fascinating reading.

As I try to come up with possible scenarios, I realize that the only thing to say about games writing - and I apologize in advance for what I'm about to say - is that most of it is mediocre.

>>I'd be glad to write an article about how turning a major magazine's hardware section into its editor's own cult of personality is stupid,

Now what could you possibly be referring to...

I think Brill's Content is an interesting answer to a question the general public doesn't care to ask. They seem little concerned about ethical lapses.

I read somewhere that a large percentage of Americans now forgo "balanced" coverage, instead looking for media outlets that present news exactly as they see things, i.e. conservatives stick to conservative press and liberals with liberal press. This boggles my mind; I love reading all viewpoints on issues in a search for some greater truth that usually lies somewhere in the middle.

>>As I try to come up with possible scenarios, I realize that the only thing to say about games writing - and I apologize in advance for what I'm about to say - is that most of it is mediocre.

Lordy, no need to apologize. I think you're being kind. The majority is probably sub-mediocre. I wish there were more dynamic and interesting writers out there, able to come up with interesting angles on standard articles or generate interesting and well-written feature stories on their own.

YOU HEAR THAT PEOPLE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, I WANT PEOPLE TO PITCH INTERESTING AND WELL-WRITTEN FEATURE STORIES! PLEASE?

>>I'd still love to see some thoughtful analysis of games writing. It may not be deserving of a regular outlet, but even the occasional article on the subject makes for fascinating reading.<<

Agreed, and I'd love to read this stuff as well. The problem is that the person doing it would probably end up being a currently active freelance writer, and thus would be publicly commenting on his colleagues and editors, which wouldn't be very smart.

On mediocrity in game writing: I absolutely agree. However, I don't think there's really much pressure from the consumer (reader) for quality of writing. Simply getting the information out there in one form or another is far more important. This may be because a significant portion of the audience (at least online) is young and is not in a position to evaluate good writing and thus doesn't place much value on it, or simply doesn't care.

I also think that an observation someone (wumpus?) made in another thread on this board is absolutely true: there are some good games writers, and some really "good gamers" (in that they play the heck out of games and know them inside and out) but if you were to draw a Venn diagram of these two sets, they would not overlap. This is at least in part due to the fact that good writers who write for a variety of outlets have so many assignments that they can't afford to play a game every day for two months. The people who CAN do this often can't write very well (perhaps, again, because they are young and consequently have a lot of free time).

>>Simply getting the information out there in one form or another is far more important.

Even Mark said so much, saying he didn't really care about people creating more, for lack of a better term, interesting reviews, preferring the "just the facts" approach.

(I'm sure I'm botching his opinion, but it seems to me someone that writes for a living would prefer to have the freedom to create more "writerly" reviews from time-to-time.)

>>This may be because a significant portion of the audience (at least online) is young and is not in a position to evaluate good writing and thus doesn't place much value on it, or simply doesn't care.

Alternately, it's free so they have lowered expectations. As far as reviews go, a "well-written" review to most people is one they agree with, not one that's actually well-written.

I see this all the time, but gamers (generally speaking) just can't seem to deal with opinions that don't perfectly match their own. They don't seem to want their opinions challenged by an article, which a better review(er) may actually do.

>>I think Brill's Content is an interesting answer to a question the general public doesn't care to ask.>I read somewhere that a large percentage of Americans now forgo "balanced" coverage, instead looking for media outlets that present news exactly as they see things, i.e. conservatives stick to conservative press and liberals with liberal press.<<

I'm not surprised at all. I think this has a lot to do with people preferring to not have to take responsibility for anything. This is why conspiracy theories are so popular. There's some giant plot to make everything happen the way it happens, so nothing you do really makes any difference. It's an easy cop-out. Of course, conspiracies rule out any sort of critical thought, which is exactly what limiting your media exposure to sympathetic views does. Your opinions are confirmed without the need for any further analysis on your part. Which is why no one wants to ask the questions answered in Brill's.

And, incidentally, is why Brill's seems to be sliding slowly towards the news media version of "Entertainment Weekly" -- everyone wants to hear the dirt on personalities.

"As I try to come up with possible scenarios, I realize that the only thing to say about games writing - and I apologize in advance for what I'm about to say - is that most of it is mediocre."

You could probably apply that to most professional writing. Game writing is a time-intensive type of writing, which is another problem. You can spend a couple of hours watching a movie and write a review, but you can't do that with a game. It makes it harder for freelancers to make a decent income.

I don't even mind the poor writing at times. I see plenty of it on Usenet. It's too often so dispassionate. I want the writer to convey the sense of playing the game, let me know how much fun it was or how frustating it was. There's no reason why good analysis can't come wrapped in some enthusiasm or disdain. Too many reviews are like talking to an auto mechanic who's going down a checklist.

>>Too many reviews are like talking to an auto mechanic who's going down a checklist.<<

I thought this was what you wanted? Like when you said you'd prefer previews to be just a feature list.

>>gamers (generally speaking) just can't seem to deal with opinions that don't perfectly match their own.<<

Absolutely. When I write for online publications that have direct email links to my address, I get a lot of email about my reviews. When I review more mainstream games, the email is invariably almost all, "your review sucked, this game rocks and you didn't like it" or "I loved your review, I love this game and you liked it, too."

To some degree, I can understand. After all, if someone is having a blast with a game, who am I to tell him the game is bad? Even if I can make a persuasive argument, if he's having fun, then that's the end of the story. That's the whole point of games. Someone could be the Harold Bloom of game critics and it wouldn't make any difference if he hated the game, as long as you felt you got your money's worth.

---

Quote:

YOU HEAR THAT PEOPLE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, I WANT PEOPLE TO PITCH INTERESTING AND WELL-WRITTEN FEATURE STORIES! PLEASE?

---

One of the most difficult lessons I've learned after five or so years of doing this is what Steve mentioned: readers don't care if you're a good writer. The occasional editor and odd reader will certainly appreciate it, but as far as driving a publication, the industry just isn't ready to support quality content. It may never be. It is too young/juvenile/unserious to note good writing, reporting, or insight.

I agree that Ron is too kind to gently suggest most game writing is mediocre. Most game writing is downright awful. But the more important point is that no one cares.

-Tom

>>Too many reviews are like talking to an auto mechanic who's going down a checklist.<<

I thought this was what you wanted? Like when you said you'd prefer previews to be just a feature list."

Previews are different from reviews. Since previews, as most mags and sites do them, don't offer any opinion, I'd prefer to have them stripped to the bone. Why spend 1200 words on description about features that may be stripped from a game that itself may never even be finished? (The answer is probably, "Because that's what the readers want." It's just not what I want.)

>>Why spend 1200 words on description about features that may be stripped from a game that itself may never even be finished?

I'm always curious WHY they're doing that feature, or what thinking made them do it a certain way and not another. That makes for an interesting preview.

You said up above:
>>Previews are different from reviews.
>>There's no reason why good analysis can't come wrapped in some enthusiasm or disdain

But in the other thread, you said, "Games are throwaway consumer products and when people want a review, they just want information about the game. All I ask is that you get to the point in the review. Don't put me to sleep, and don't adopt that bland, corporate style I see a lot."

So what do you want? Enthusiasm and disdain or "get to the point?"

"I'm always curious WHY they're doing that feature, or what thinking made them do it a certain way and not another. That makes for an interesting preview."

Yeah, sort of. I'd rather read about it after the game is released in many ways, though. Then I have the actual game in hand, so it's immediately relevant. I've seen too many features discussed in previews that never make it into the final game.

Besides, many previews just read like extended laundry lists of features. There's not much analysis or explanation in them. And yes, I know that your answer would be that those are bad previews. My answer is that in reaction to that, I'd prefer pared down previews.

It's far worse on the web, also, where word counts often vanish. How many words were written about Diablo 2 before it was released? We had multi-thousand word previews about a single character class, for crissakes. We had the same with AOE2 with entire previews being written about a single race. It's just too much for me, though obviously not for many, since I assume they did good traffic for those websites.

"But in the other thread, you said, "Games are throwaway consumer products and when people want a review, they just want information about the game. All I ask is that you get to the point in the review. Don't put me to sleep, and don't adopt that bland, corporate style I see a lot."

So what do you want? Enthusiasm and disdain or "get to the point?"

I'd like both. They're not mutually exclusive, are they? Getting to the point doesn't preclude supporting your point with enthusiasm or disdain.

What I meant was that reviews that are meant to be entertaining in ways other than analysis and conclusion may not be in tune with what the readers want. As a writer of reviews you can be devilishly clever and funny, but if you're doing so just to be clever and funny and not really make much of a point otherwise, you risk losing some readers who just want the review.

"One of the most difficult lessons I've learned after five or so years of doing this is what Steve mentioned: readers don't care if you're a good writer. The occasional editor and odd reader will certainly appreciate it, but as far as driving a publication, the industry just isn't ready to support quality content. It may never be. It is too young/juvenile/unserious to note good writing, reporting, or insight."

This statement makes me queasy but it's probably true. What's more, it's probably true for most writing. I almost wrote "most journalism" but then I recalled such bestselling authors as James Patterson ("Along Came A Spider") and the Bridges of Madison County guy (I'm not gonna bother to look him up) and got queasy again.

I don't like that this is the way of things, mainly because I am a person who prefers good writing and loves to read reviews, whether they be of games or films or restaurants or whatever. I just like the genre. I realize I am in the minority. Most folks just want to be told "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" or want to check on the number of stars or see if it's a "Direct Hit" or not and move on. I suppose I understand this, but I don't appreciate it. I don't want all of the world of criticism to become Consumer Reports. That has its place, but I want to have the option to read David Denby or Anthony Lane's criticisms of films or Tom Chick's column in Daily Radar in addition to finding out if the damn things got five stars. I don't want the art of criticism to disappear just because there is a perception that our collective attention span is too short.

Which reminds me of something. Recently I heard about a book (NPR? Premiere?) that talks about the film world and it's thesis is that the theory that the masses do not want to watch the more intimate stories like "You Can Count On Me" is false. It is an argument created by the people who want to churn out blockbusters. According to this book there is huge support "out there" for films that are not blockbusters, for the kind of films that are getting smaller and smaller releases and less and less studio support. The premise being that we have been brainwashed into believing in this rabble-majority who only wants junk food, while a healthy population of gourmet diners is out there starving to death, afraid to say anything because they think they are the lone exception.

Any thoughts on this? Anyone else heard of this book? I would like to believe it is true, that all of this lowest common denominator stuff is just crap. Unfortunately I have a hard time believing it. I suppose anyone who has ever worked in any level of food service would.

Amanpour

P.S. I had the "mixed metaphors" setting erroneously set to "YES" (along with having my mouse accidentally not Inverted) while I wrote the above. So leave me be.

Man I hate coming into a thread that just started and it looks like an irc chat log. :) So much to comment on.

First, in the avault article the idea I found most interesting is that PCGamers' lack of creditability is something new. Its only been four years since the whole Scott Wolf incident. Ofcourse I remember Electronic Game's pre-crash preview of the 1984 CES like it was yesterday.

Second, I perfer long multiple previews and short reviews. With previews I want long articles on single races. With reviews I want to know only 4 things. 1) Is it fun, 2)Has all the Features avertised, 3)any game crippling bugs 4)Will it run on my machine. More often than not, with the reviews I'll read any side bars, the beginning paragraph and ending paragraph. 95% of the time, that will tell me everything I need to know review wise. One magazine actually had a three page review of NOLF with a big paragraph explaining what a fps is in the middle. Please....

Third, David said something that clicked in my brain. He is right that most people want to read only what they agree with. I found it really odd that Daikatana ended up on vitually everyone's worse list and when it didn't make someone's list they were bombarded with mail stating how wrong they were.

People seem to appreciate movie writing, for instance, or book reviews, that are well-written, witty, and insightful. Maybe it has to do with films and movies being fairly permanent cultural fixtures.


Look at it this way. A movie, especially now days, with DVD, is pretty much forever--you'll be able to view it a half-century from now in all probability. Ditto a book. But a computer game is tied to a snapshot of technology. How hard is it to even get a "classic" game like the original XCOM to run on today's systems? It's simply not possible (or possibly just not simple ) for most users to play games from even five years ago in a lot of cases. Add to that the stigma of being a "game" as opposed to "art," and you have a reason why folks don't necessarily want a New York Times Review of Video Games quite yet.


On another issue, that of watchdogs and the like, I think the type of press that's available, in print and online, about video/computer games is determined by the type of publications we have. The way I see it, we have a fundamentally different relationship with our readers than, say, Time or Newsweek do. We are specialty journals, focused on one industry. While we have no interest in pimping any one part of the industry (any one company), we have a definite interest in promoting the industry as a whole. It's like Car and Driver or Road & Track: they don't necessarily crusade for or against Ford or Honda or Toyota, but they do exert themselves in defense of driving and motor sports in general.


We're kinda the same. We have to be accurate, fair, and honest, not only because most of us want to me and think it's right, but because our audience that ultimately pays the bills, demands it of us (and they do, I think; despite complaints about objectivity et al, I really don't think any of the major publications are truly mendacious). We don't have an obligation, though, to crusade for the consumer. In the struggle between buyers and sellers, we're kind of the neutral party that rents the marketplace to the town--we want commerce to flourish and everyone to be happy, but we don't really pick sides.


I think some folks in the game mag business (online too) and some gamers feel we should be/are advocates of gamers, in opposition somehow to the game business. This not only isn't so, it isn't desirable, really, considering how dependent we and the readers are on info from game companies. It has to be a partnership with both gamers and companies if we're to serve either well.

>>Yeah, sort of. I'd rather read about it after the game is released in many ways, though.

Yeah, I know what you mean, and I don't disagree. Readers, in general, don't seem to mind, but we're trying to figure out ways to do more post-release coverage that's interesting to people, beyond reviews/tips/cheats.

>>I'd like both. They're not mutually exclusive, are they? Getting to the point doesn't preclude supporting your point with enthusiasm or disdain.

Often getting to the point with enthusiasm or disdain requires some off-beat or tangential thinking. It's not necessarily mutually exclusive, but I think it's tough to pull off an entertaining and direct review. It might be a good review, but it probably won't be very... for lack of a better word, "fun" review.

>>As a writer of reviews you can be devilishly clever and funny, but if you're doing so just to be clever and funny and not really make much of a point otherwise, you risk losing some readers who just want the review.

Absolutely, and you run the risk of the review being more about the reviewer and less about the game. While I think that can work in some context (i.e. in a column), it's something I like to avoid whenever possible. And it's one of the reasons I hate first-person reviews, because I just feel like that tense makes it sound too much like it's about you and not the game. I also think it diminishes the impact of the review somewhat, making it more about your experience and less universal (even though a review is ultimately YOUR experience... it sounds more definitive when you ditch first-person).

Blah. Rambling.

Asher: "We had multi-thousand word previews about a single character class, for crissakes. We had the same with AOE2 with entire previews being written about a single race"

You can afford stories like this online, and in fact they're almost a necessity. To me, stories like this are valuable because they generate traffic, which in turn allows you to write more interesting articles that might not be as popular.

Online, someone can just avoid the stories they don't want to read, and there's less of a real estate issue than with print magazines. Of course, there's the argument that resources are being consumed in order to produce these types of stories, but there's obviously a demand.

Geryk: "However, I don't think there's really much pressure from the consumer (reader) for quality of writing."

Agreed, though I think they respond to good writing/interesting articles when given the chance. Look at OMM - the entire basis for their popularity is that Erik and Chet are such good writers.

At the risk of tooting a horn with which I was associated (no, I'm not gonna edit that), Geoff Keighley's GameSpot series about the makings of various games proved to be very popular. Even the Trilobyte story (a very, very lengthy article about why Trilobyte went out of business) was a hugely popular feature, and this was when the company hadn't released a game in years.

Whether or not you like/d those stories is not the issue. The point is that they were a novel means of covering games (heavily-researched, post-release, long and involved, non-strategy/review), that proved popular. The fact that there's no demand or pressure doesn't necessarily mean there is no audience.

Bauman: "Absolutely, and you run the risk of the review being more about the reviewer and less about the game... it's one of the reasons I hate first-person reviews"

This is one of the few points in the history of western thought on which Bauman and I agree. I used to get dozens of requests from potential reviewers, and everyone thought they had found the key to good reviewing. It's a mistake a lot of new writers make, and one I made myself a great deal when I was starting out. That somehow, "more personality" is the key to combating staleness.

Unfortunately, personality to most new writers (and some experienced) relies less on finding original ways to discuss the games themselves and more on demonstrating their own wackiness and/or erudition. I'm resisting launching into my "biggest game review pet peeves" rant (and yes - one of them is the phrase "pet peeves"), but perhaps I'll do it if I don't get some sleep soon.

"Asher: "We had multi-thousand word previews about a single character class, for crissakes. We had the same with AOE2 with entire previews being written about a single race"

You can afford stories like this online, and in fact they're almost a necessity. To me, stories like this are valuable because they generate traffic, which in turn allows you to write more interesting articles that might not be as popular."

Sure, you can ignore it, but there's so much coverage that's just of marginal interest at best that it tends to make me push it all away. Just go to Blue's News at the end of the day and read all the links to new articles and ask yourself how many of them you even want to look at. It's too much. The good writing has been overwhelmed and diluted by the bad and mediocre.

That's why Tom and I started a website. So we could add to the deluge. :)

"all the links to new articles and ask yourself how many of them you even want to look at... The good writing has been overwhelmed and diluted by the bad and mediocre."

I think these are two different issues. Boring subject matter does not mean bad writing. Though they can complement each other, the subject of an article and the quality of the writing therein are not synonymous.

If I'm interested in the subject, the quality of the writing is secondary to the information. Conversely, I'd read a 20-page preview of a Cryo game if it was written by a writer whose work I admired.

To dig up an old example: Almost every magazine and site has done a "100 Best Games of All Time" story. Usually, I'll read these stories in the same manner I'll listen to Dr. Laura Schlesinger or Black Flag's "My War." I know full well it's going to get me riled up, but my morbid curiosity gets the better of me. Conversely, when OGR did its list, I read it because I had a good deal of respect for that site and its editors. I nodded in agreement, instead of shaking my head (and fists) in disbelief.

Bauman: "Absolutely, and you run the risk of the review being more about the reviewer and less about the game... it's one of the reasons I hate first-person reviews"

Bleah, this is why I don't like writing reviews. On the other hand, knowing more about the reviewer can help the reader properly evaluate the review. No two reviewers are identical. Just because Erik didn't like a game doesn't mean it isn't fun. ;)

Dulin: Almost every magazine and site has done a "100 Best Games of All Time" story.

Ugh. I'm not even going to go there. Pure fluff if you ask me.

The Avault article tries to link advertising with getting a game reviewed. I very much expect there to be a correlation. After seeing months and months of ads for some game, as a reader I want that game to be reviewed!

- Alan

"At the risk of tooting a horn with which I was associated (no, I'm not gonna edit that), Geoff Keighley's GameSpot series about the makings of various games proved to be very popular."

I loved these articles and would like to see more like them. Even the Daikatana was fascinating because it wasn't a fluff piece and Romero was pretty honest about what went wrong. Another great series I liked at Gamespot is the Gaming Graveyard series. I haven't seen one in a while, but they were very good too.

I wish some of the mags or sites would ask developers to do postmortems, similar to gamasutra's articles, but perhaps a bit less technical.

"Yeah, I know what you mean, and I don't disagree. Readers, in general, don't seem to mind, but we're
trying to figure out ways to do more post-release coverage that's interesting to people, beyond
reviews/tips/cheats."

How about evolution? The patches released and what they've done, the improvements the community has made, or tidbits that have popped up around the game. CGW makes me nuts, the way they love to refer to a gaming "community" or a "mod community" that has popped up around a particular game, but don't provide any examples of what they are talkng about. Hello? I read these articles for information, not to be told things with an air that implies I should already know what is being said. I find similarly frustrating the assertion that some mags will only review finished games, as they were released. That totally discounts anything that could have later happened to add value to a game, and that game might now be at a VERY attractive price by the time it happened. CGW had a good thing for a few issues with their "Dumpster Diving" sidebar. They'd show you some bargain bin titles that were either already great, or which were MADE great after release through post-release efforts. I LOVED that approach. Too bad they canceled it.

>>Bleah, this is why I don't like writing reviews. On the other hand, knowing more about the reviewer can help the reader properly evaluate the review. No two reviewers are identical. Just because Erik didn't like a game doesn't mean it isn't fun. ;)

I don't understand this thinking at all. Why can't people judge a review at face value? Look at the arguments and see if they seem reasonable... don't we do that with all other reviews?

It seems that with game reviews people feel they need to have the personal histories of the reviews, their tastes, their preferences... what does this information tell you? Nothing. Zero. Nada. It won't tell you if you'll like the game, it doesn't tell you if those arguments are well-formed or logical, or if the review was based on enough time to properly evaluate the product.

What I was really getting at, though, with the comment about the review being more about the reviewer are those that do things like, "So I installed the game and started playing, but it crashed. So then Bob comes over and says, 'Woah, you need to upgrade to DirectX 8.' So I gave myself a bitch-slap and popped the DX8 CD of love into my kick-ass DVD-ROM of goodness... blah blah blah. The DX8-powered visuals were waxed..."

Ugh. I suck at even emulating that style.

By the way, am I the only person that's annoyed that most reviews are written in past tense?

>>The patches released and what they've done, the improvements the community has made, or tidbits that have popped up around the game.

Um, no comment, heh heh.

I would love to read more investigative reporting in the gaming press. As William Abner at CDmag is apt to point out, the greatest piece of investigative reporting in recent gaming history came not from the gaming press, but from a Dallas newspaper (the Ion Storm story). And it was a fascinating read.

There are so many great stories. Hell, even in the sports genre (the afterthought of most game mags) you have the Front Page Sports Football '99 meltdown, Infinite Monkey's debacle with Wizard Works, Front Office Football's nightmare with EaSports, etc., etc. The stories are out there, guys. Someone write them. I don't need another freakin' Black and White preview!

Bauman: I don't understand this thinking at all. Why can't people judge a review at face value? Look at the arguments and see if they seem reasonable... don't we do that with all other reviews?

I wish it were as clean as that. Partly it's an issue of credibility, of knowing that some sources tend to be more critical or more forgiving regarding certain types of games. Sorry if I went a bit overboard; the last thing I want is space spent on reviewer bios at the expense of real content.

hido: I would love to read more investigative reporting in the gaming press.

Agreed. It's one of the reasons I became interested in the press aspect in the first place, and I think it's one part where writing quality still matters.

- Alan

"the greatest piece of investigative reporting in recent gaming history came not from the gaming press, but from a Dallas newspaper (the Ion Storm story). And it was a fascinating read."

Written by a trained professional journalist. It's no wonder the Dallas Morning News wrote it. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, game writers don't have this kind of training. They're hobbyists. Good writers don't necessarily make good journalists. Especially if they're not trained to be.

Front Office Football's nightmare with EaSports"

As was pointed out earlier, no magazine or website is going to jeopardize its relationship with a big publisher in order to air some dirty laundry. And I think someone mentioned that industry articles like this aren't all that popular among readers, making it even less likely that someone will go out on a limb to publish an article like this.

Game news is treated very delicately by publications. I don't know how many times I've been told by a developer that "we're working on Game X" or Y or Z with the understanding that I wasn't going to tell anyone. Games go far into development without anyone mentioning a word for publication to the gaming press until PR says it's ok, at which point there's an orchestrated release of news. This is trade writing. Comparisons to mainstream news media are inappropriate. We're more like Home Audio or High Fidelity or Electronic Musician writers. The ad money all comes from one source, and the relationships are very close.

If a story is big enough, the mainstream press will cover it. The rest is often just gossip. BitchX was amusing, but there was little or no news value there. I think you'd find most "investigative" pieces in gaming would turn out that way.

>>Someone write them. I don't need another freakin' Black and White preview!

Bottom line. More people are more interested in that freakin' Black and White preview. And it will take me a couple of days to throw together, versus a week/month for an investigative piece.

>>Written by a trained professional journalist.

...with a staff of fact checkers and lawyers who can evaluate an article and better judge whether or not it is libelous.

>>I wish it were as clean as that. Partly it's an issue of credibility, of knowing that some sources tend to be more critical or more forgiving regarding certain types of games.

But that still doesn't answer the question of why that matters. Sure, credibility is important, assuming you're looking at the big picture of the overall reputation of a publication, but you should be able to tell much of the writer's bias from the article itself.

I am somewhat dumbfounded that Mr. Geryk is basically saying that the gaming press is just a bunch of amateurs that are too scared to write a possibly negative piece on a game company. If that is the case, then I should stick to Usenet for opinions/reviews/news because at least the amateur writers there are not influenced by corporate ad dollars. Is that what you are saying?

I am sorry to be so harsh, but that is how your post comes off. Mr. Bauman's reply was similar in the sense that he basically said that it's too much trouble or too expensive (I'm not clear on his point) and that a game mag doesn't have the resources to do a deep story. While that may be true, it's not exactly like anyone has ever tried in this genre. Perhaps spending the extra couple of weeks could pay off, Steve.

Btw, I'd read it. Maybe no else would, but I have a hard time totally believing that. Especially when you look at the age, income, and education level of a large number of PC gamers.

"As was pointed out earlier, no magazine or website is going to jeopardize its relationship with a big publisher in order to air some dirty laundry."

I actually think the reluctance to publish stories like this has more to do with the "non-journalist" aspect of most game writers. When you write or publish an article for which you know you'll get flack, you'd best have all your bases covered. Any slip up, whether it be a misquote or a slight error in data, can cause untold ramifications.

As such, it's no wonder most editors shy away from such stories. I'm sure every editor and freelancer reading this has had a negative run-in with a game company from a bad review alone. In those cases, it's easy to support your story: It's a subjective opinion. When you don't have an army of fact-checkers and writers armed with years of training in journalistic practices, though, so-called investigative pieces are much harder to verify and, more importantly, defend.

I had this experience many years ago with a story which claimed a highly-anticipated game had sold in very small numbers. The writer's source was another gaming magazine, and it was stated as such in the story. Unfortunately, the other magazine was wrong by a very large factor (as were several others that had published the same information). They were simply reporting rumor.

Luckily, the subject of the story was very kind about it and even appreciative that we took the time to investigate the matter. We were fortunate that the story hadn't published, and I don't know why I got the whim to fact-check that particular piece of information that was simply a small tidbit in a much broader article. Still, it made me gunshy about publishing information without thoroughly checking it however possible, and it made me wonder how many mistakes I had let slip in the past. More than that, it made me suspicious of much of the information I read in other magazines for many years.

Fact-checking is such a basic rule that it's surprising it isn't followed religiously. But you'd be surprised at just how few standard practices our industry-oriented magazines adhere to, or are even aware of.

"Written by a trained professional journalist. It's no wonder the Dallas Morning News wrote it. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, game writers don't have this kind of training. They're hobbyists. Good writers don't necessarily make good journalists. Especially if they're not trained to be."

So someone that is a paid editor of PCG, CGW, etc. is not a professional journalist? Many of the people I know in the newspaper business did not go to journalism school, oddly enough. Granted they learned at the feet of masters, but I have a hard time believing that in its 20 years, CGW has not picked up a few tips on how to write a story and check facts. And I am sure a magazine with a circulation of 200,000+ can afford a lawyer.

"As was pointed out earlier, no magazine or website is going to jeopardize its relationship with a big publisher in order to air some dirty laundry."

This statement says to me that a magazine will not publish a story if it offends a potnetial advertiser. That leads me to think that everything is biased in any of the publications you hve worked for. I'm sorry but that is how your original statement and its follow-up reads to me.

---

Quote:

This statement says to me that a magazine will not publish a story if it offends a potnetial advertiser. That leads me to think that everything is biased in any of the publications you hve worked for. I'm sorry but that is how your original statement and its follow-up reads to me.

---

Not trying to be obtuse, nor flame. I was just surprised by the bluntness (obviously inferred incorrectly by me) from a writer whose columns/reviews I have a lot of respect for. Your statements did lead me down a path towards my conclusions.

Unless I'm mistaken, Bruce doesn't work full-time for any game magazine so any statements of policies should be taken as opinion, not fact. As a freelancer, I suspect he wouldn't be privvy to the inner working of the publications he writes for, but I could be wrong.

Anyhoo, I've done a few stories on things like retailers shutting out small publishers, and spent a few weeks interviewing publishers and retailers. It turned out okay, but no one cared. We got no letters saying, "Yes, I want more of that!", and the articles generated almost no traffic on the website. They're totally non-starters as far as reader interest.

Compare the two weeks spent on that article with the 15 minutes I spent putting together an Ultima Online: Third Dawn news story that generated one of our biggest traffic days ever on our website. You tell me where I'm better off spending the 10 hours a day I work. The vast majority of readers want to read about games, and any publication that expends a lot of energy pursuing more industry-style features runs the risk of losing readers. If I have the ultimate expose on our cover and PC Gamer has Duke Nukem Forever, which do you think more people will want to buy? It may be sad, but the honest truth.

(This would be the NextGen phenomenon, who'd run splashy interviews with the president of Acclaim and lots of insider stories. And they had no circulation until they dropped all of that and went to pretty much straight previews/reviews.)

The Dallas Observer's piece on ION Storm was really an internal matter that wasn't the public's business. Perhaps Eidos shareholders should know about internal politics and wild overspending, but how was it affecting gamers? They weren't out there deceiving the public, they weren't ripping any consumers off...

Was it entertaining? Absolutely. Was it well done? You bet. Was it an important story? Nope. It didn't expose anything but a bunch of immature morons running a game company and spending a lot of money at an alarming rate. Guess what? That same story could be told about hundreds of game companies or Internet startups.

Having said all of this, I'd love to have writers do investigative pieces, assuming there was something really worth investigating that wasn't too "insider." You can never lose fact that we're consumer publications that focus on product reviews and features about games. We're not trade magazines. If you want insider reporting, try GameWeek, just as you'd probably prefer Variety over Movieline for your movie analysis.

You mentioned a couple of feature stories: Infinite Monkey's debacle with Wizard Works, Front Office Football's nightmare with EA Sports. I don't know about the first, but we had a writer looking into the Front Office Football situation. As with most of these stories it died on the vine because these things are pretty damn complex. First off we need a contract lawyer to evaluate contracts, assuming that's where the problems lie. And we need a writer familiar enough with the internal workings of the game business to understand publisher/developer relationships.

Next you need to get both sides of the story, but here's the thing--gamers don't really want both sides of an issue, just as they don't want to disagree with a review. They want the "nightmare" with EA Sports; they want the big guy screwing the little guy.

I don't know the specifics of that particular situation, but what if it turns out the guy did something stupid and it was all his fault, i.e. he signed a shitty contract? (This is generally the source of every problem in the industry.) Would you want that to be the article, "Small developer signs dumb contract?"

You know what would happen if we exposed that particular version of the truth? We'd be accused of bias toward EA Sports (despite the fact they're not an advertiser).

Anyway, there's no conspiracy. Bad reviews are way more damaging then any feature story. Do you think Daikatana sold poorly because of the Dallas Observer or because of the near-universal pans it received from the press? And which story was more valuable to readers, tales of internal squabbling or a review that says the game they're offering up to you at $40 is a bug-ridden mess?

---

Quote:

Unless I'm mistaken, Bruce doesn't work full-time for any game magazine so any statements of policies should be taken as opinion, not fact. As a freelancer, I suspect he wouldn't be privvy to the inner working of the publications he writes for, but I could be wrong.

---

>>No, you're not wrong. I thought it was clear that as a freelancer I'm just expressing my opinion.

But as a freelancer your opinion, particularly when discussing publications, carries greater weight then the average guy on the street...

---

Quote:

But as a freelancer your opinion, particularly when discussing publications, carries greater weight then the average guy on the street

---

"Bad reviews are way more damaging then any feature story."

I'll agree with yout about the lack of interest in industry stories, but I'm not even sure bad reviews have much of an impact. Daikatana is an exception. I don't think you can judge it and come to any conclusions. There was so much written about it before it was released that it's hard to know when the damage was done.

I'm sure bad reviews hurt and good reviews help, but I'm not sure they have a big impact on sales. Gamers seem to have their mind made up about purchasing a game before they read reviews.

"I was more disappointed by the fact that despite a fair amount of numerical data, the article really said nothing. It also got no information from the advertisers in terms of how THEY perceive advertising and what they expect from it in terms of coverage by the publications they buy it from. I'm not saying that I could do it better -- I'm simply saying that as a proper investigative article it falls kind of flat."

I guess you guys are new to Adrenaline Vault? When have they ever published anything worthwhile in any sense of the word? Killer download and cheats sections though. No, that wasn't sarcasm.

As for the subject of "playola", I don't think readers really care. I know I like to read at least a half-dozen reviews (plus, hopefully play the demo) before buying any game that I'm unsure of. So if a few mags or sites are giving games an extra star here or there (anything more would start to become obvious-- eg, Daikatana gets a 90%?), does it really matter?

In general I've noticed that the more reviews I read, the better sense I get of whether I will like a game or not. Everyone has a different perspective, and everyone brings something different to the table.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"Alternately, it's free so they have lowered expectations. As far as reviews go, a "well-written" review to most people is one they agree with, not one that's actually well-written."

An astute observation.

"I see this all the time, but gamers (generally speaking) just can't seem to deal with opinions that don't perfectly match their own. They don't seem to want their opinions challenged by an article, which a better review(er) may actually do."

Well, the question lies in the spirit of the writing. I don't think CTHD merits anything close to the raves it's been getting, but is it really my job to jump in and ruin the party for everyone else? It's one thing to share your opinion, but entirely another to play the spoiler. After all, who am I to begrudge another man his enjoyment of a movie?

Getting back to games. I don't mean to single Tom out, but let's consider his infamous review of Deus Ex, since I think it's such a good example of what we're talking about here. I completely _agree_ with his opinion, but I completely disagree with the way in which it was presented. I think one of the requirements of good reviewing is to empathize with your readers. It is possible to serve yourself and your readers. Go too far in either direction and you're in trouble.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"At the risk of tooting a horn with which I was associated (no, I'm not gonna edit that), Geoff Keighley's GameSpot series about the makings of various games proved to be very popular. Even the Trilobyte story (a very, very lengthy article about why Trilobyte went out of business) was a hugely popular feature, and this was when the company hadn't released a game in years."

Which seems to fly in the face of Steve's comments. And yes, the BTG series is absolutely first-rate, even gripping reading. I can't emphasize enough how good the series is. If you haven't read at least a few of them, head over there. You'll thank me later.

As for the Trilobyte article, now I appreciate what a piece of work Graeme Devine is. Him and his friggin' obsession with Macintoshes and his stupid video codec. Bah.

"What I was really getting at, though, with the comment about the review being more about the reviewer are those that do things like, "So I installed the game and started playing, but it crashed. So then Bob comes over and says, 'Woah, you need to upgrade to DirectX 8.' So I gave myself a bitch-slap and popped the DX8 CD of love into my kick-ass DVD-ROM of goodness... blah blah blah. The DX8-powered visuals were waxed..."

Heh. Actually, I thought that was pretty good! You underestimate yourself, Steve.

"Bottom line. More people are more interested in that freakin' Black and White preview. And it will take me a couple of days to throw together, versus a week/month for an investigative piece. "

Yeah, but that B&W preview (the one you guys posted, then pulled from the cdmag website) was _really_ good. For all the hype about B&W virtually nobody has played the damn thing and talked about it, until that article. Oh well, print exclusive, fuggedaboudit.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Here is a piece I want written: �Why the hell games that do not work aren�t recalled?�

Sierra�s football is the only one I know that was ever recalled and to be honest, I don�t feel that game was all that bad off. I�m talking about games that do not work at all out of the box. Not ones with a few bugs that can be patched.

Two games are currently on the shelf that have no business being there. One is Shiny�s Messiah and the other is Take Two�s 1996 release of Battlecruiser 3000. (Beware of games in silver boxes) Both of these games have reissues that do work but the original 1.0 releases should be burned or something.

You're right about there being a story here, but I think those games belong in different categories. BC3K didn't work, period. Messiah doesn't work for some people. (It works fine out of the box on my systems.)

I wonder if the Sierra football debacle is part of the reason they don't do sports games anymore? Or was it simply a casualty of the post-Havas cuts?

The Sierra sports games were on their way out when the football game debacle occurred. They got killed by EA in the marketplace.

Rather than look at batched releases, I think a more interesting article would be to look at why some games get developed and others don't. Take Hasbro Interactive, for example. Why are they doing X-COM Enforcer? Why aren't they doing Master of Magic 2, which was reportedly under development and cancelled?

The problem is that Hasbro Interactive won't really want to talk about their internal decision-making process so I'd have to find people who would talk anonymously. And, as Steve alluded to, it would just be a time-consuming story to run down. Is someone going to pay me enough money to justify spending two to three weeks researching and writing it?

Knowing next to nothing about the game, I can only speculate. But that never stopped me before. :-D

1) It's an FPS. (Is it Unreal-driven, like Alliance?)

2) It's tied to a big "franchise."

Wasn't Master of Magic more of a critical/cult darling than a huge seller?

The reason why Master of Magic 2 was cancelled was that it was being developed at a studio that was losing lots of money for the better part of 5 years. Same with Xcom Genesis. They tried to transfer the titles to Hunt Valley but they have there own issues.

This is the kind of critical analysis that I'd like to see applied to game articles.

http://slate.msn.com/code/kausfiles/kausfiles.asp?Show=2/20/2001&idMessage=7110

Maybe I'm reading too much into this dicussion, but it seems to me that this forum has enough content/contacts for an article. *grin*

On a bit of a tangent, anybody know how Age of Wonders did? I consider it the spiritual successor to MoM.

- Alan

Bruce, that was most excellent. I'd shudder to see my own work undergo an examination like that. I think getting a prostate exam would be more enjoyable.

"Here is a piece I want written: �Why the hell games that do not work aren�t recalled?� "

As long as they auto-update themselves over the internet automatically, I really don't care.

That's the future of PC gaming. Nobody can write a bug free game, not even Blizzard. Those guys crack me up. They delay a game for two years to "remove bugs", then spend the next year patching it. Why bother? Why not just make the whole development process more organic and "grow" the games as you play them?

Worked for Counter-Strike. Hell, I get bored with games that don't change over time. The best part of Total Annihilation was the new units they released for a good year after the game hit store shelves. Once that died off, a part of my interest in the game died off too.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

If anyone is interesting in discussing this topic with the writer, he's made an appearance over at Planetcrap.com, rebutting some comments I've made in a thread there about an early review of Black & White at PC Zone.

This thread?

http://www.planetcrap.com/stories/240/0/14/#comments

Always post a link, Steve. You can never underestimate people's laziness, and I gleefully include myself in that generalization.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

>>Always post a link, Steve. You can never underestimate people's laziness, and I gleefully include myself in that generalization.

I was too lazy to post a link.

But that's the right thread.

Who is BruceR? Some AVault guy? Is he the one who wrote the article? I guess so, since Steve refers to "the writer." As wumpus astutely observed, I'm too lazy to look up the article again and find this out for myself. But I wasn't too lazy to click on the link once it was provided.

The only thing I'd say in response to all that is that someone should tell BruceR that it's a bad idea to try and sound smart by changing the well-known constant "speed of light" to the slightly-smarter-sounding but incorrect "velocity of light." No matter what the MS Word thesaurus says, speed and velocity are not synonyms. Velocity is a vector, and has direction. Speed is a scalar, and does not. So if you think the "velocity of light" is a constant, that must mean it's always going in the same direction. Well, it does go east-west.

That was pretty nerdy. I apologize.

"That was pretty nerdy. I apologize."

Painful. Just painful. But as long as you keep taking cheap shots at Tom Chick in your articles, I'll let it slide.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

>>The only thing I'd say in response to all that is that someone should tell BruceR that it's a bad idea to try and sound smart by changing the well-known constant "speed of light" to the slightly-smarter-sounding but incorrect "velocity of light." No matter what the MS Word thesaurus says, speed and velocity are not synonyms. Velocity is a vector, and has direction. Speed is a scalar, and does not. So if you think the "velocity of light" is a constant, that must mean it's always going in the same direction. Well, it does go east-west.

That was pretty nerdy. I apologize.<<

Thanks for giving me flashbacks of AP Physics.

*stopped taking it when we had to use vector calculus to figure out velocity*

-Thierry

AP Physics... ugh... more like Physics 101 and 102 in College. Good God those were tough courses. Though Multivariable Calculus and Seminar in Neural Nets pretty much fried my brain for good. Now I write about games. :)

BTW, why is it that Physics professors are always so soft spoken? Is it because what comes out of their mouths can make students turn into balls of mush?

Ok, I'll stop now...

--Dave