I got the new CGW magazine today, and am pleased that they have gone with a more updated look. The intro editorial from Jeff Green assures us that the focus will be unchanged, and this flashier look doesn't mean theyre dumbing down the magazine. Overall, I'm impressed. Jeff Green, if you're reading this, nice job all around to you and your staff.

Also, there's a big Everquest feature by Mark Asher. Great job mark!

By the way, they should just drop the charade with the CGW web site and point readers here! :) Practically everyone who has a byline in the issue is a regular at Qt3.

It looks okay, but despite what they're saying about not changing focus, there seems to be considerably fewer words per page. That says the focus is moving away from words toward visuals, with the giant two page screenshots giving you even more indication of that trend.

Bigger pictures? Well, you know how it is. No one reads it for the articles anyway.

Thanks Alan!
And, Anonymous, it's really not considerably fewer words because we lowered the font size to accomodate bigger artwork. I think a lot of the articles in that issue are still pretty wordy. And like "uh huh" says below you, people do seem to like them pictures....

We really tried hard not to "dumb down" or lighten the editorial content (see Ardai's 2-page editorial on the fallout from Sept 11) but I guess you all can be the judge of that....

Need
more
words.

Hehe :)

I thought it was a pretty nice change, not sure if using 6 important pages on a single comic is a good idea, though..

--- Alan

"I thought it was a pretty nice change, not sure if using 6 important pages on a single comic is a good idea, though "

Well, that was a one-time feature from a very well-known comic book creator---so we felt like it was justified (and cool). Actually, the 6 pages is one-time. Scott McCloud is going to be doing a one-page comic for us for a number of issues into the future now...

Just don't let McCloud ramble on about micropayments, please.

Less words, comics, flashier pictures.... please don't go there Jeff. The mag was just starting to get really good 6 issues ago. Ugh. I gotta find a news stand and see for myself.

I'm very much in favor of the new CGW format.

It seems more serious overall, more like a hobbyist magazine than something designed to appeal to the kids (more like CGM really, but without imitating CGM). The Read.Me columns (particularly Bruce's) are exactly the sort of column work I like to read, and I also found T. Liam's interview with that AO designer very interesting (I wonder if that's not a self-defeating department though). The issue just seems chock full of things that nobody else is doing, which makes it an interesting read.

One fault I have with computer mags in general (CGM less so than others) is that everything seems to be written without passion. It's written because "that's what the audience wants." I much prefer to read things the editors and writers *want* to write about because:
A. that passion is often infectious
B. those perspectives are often refreshing

I'm not a big McCloud fan but I think I enjoyed those six pages more than most PC mag features. It was a risk, something different, and even if I hadn't liked it, at least it would've been something different.

Good job to you Green, particularly the ideas that worked. Now, will you stop being so self-deprecating? ;)

-Andrew

>>Good job to you Green, particularly the ideas that worked. Now, will you stop being so self-deprecating? ;)

Someone has to balance the ridiculously smug, out-of-control egos of the PC Gamer editors.

"Good job to you Green, particularly the ideas that worked. Now, will you stop being so self-deprecating? ;) "

hehe. I saw Ray Romano on Dennis Miller awhile back. Referring to the title of his show, he said something along the lines of "Even if everybody DOES love me--I hate myself enough to more than make up for it."

About this comment, Rob:
"Less words, comics, flashier pictures.... please don't go there Jeff. The mag was just starting to get really good 6 issues ago. Ugh. I gotta find a news stand and see for myself. "

I honestly believe this is not where we're going. My main goal was to maintain our editorial focus---but just to bring the design out of 1984, that's all. If anything, I think the content is *more* interesting and *more* challenging and *more* diverse than it's ever been. I'm glad Bub wrote what he did cuz that's exactly what I was going for....

jeff

Hmm. Is Bub a totally unbiased opinion? I think not... :-) Not that I disagree with Bub very often, I'm just saying its hard to get an average-joe-on-the-street opinion around here with all you writer types. I can't wait to see the issue though.

Which issue is this -- December, right? Haven't seen it yet, but I'll be sure and chime in once I do.

Typically, though, I'm very fond of your mag, and I expect to like it. :-)

I don't want to get into too much detail about a competing magazine, but I still read it just like everyone else so I'll just be real brief here:

I don't like the dark backgrounds with tiny white type for the features. It's hard to read. And the strategy guide with the red and dark red horizontal lines makes the type practically illegible.

I'm not sure if it's a change in focus or what, but I think in the early part of the magazine, there's DEFINITELY less text. Sure the font is smaller, but those two-page screenshots with a partially filled sidebar of text are nowhere NEAR what a normal two-page article with regular sized screenshots would be. That's probably intentional...more like an extended caption to a two-page shot than an attempt at an "article."

I like the labeled sections of the screenshots, though. If you're going to fill more than a page with one shot, it's cool to point out stuff in various areas of it. Kinda makes that "picture is worth a thousand words" thing work, if you know what you're supposed to be looking at. =)

That's all I'm going to say about it. If Jeff wants to hear more opinion outta me, I think it would be better to do in private - not because it's negative, just because it's touchy to publicly critique a competing mag.

"I don't like the dark backgrounds with tiny white type for the features. It's hard to read. And the strategy guide with the red and dark red horizontal lines makes the type practically illegible.

I'm in partial agreement about the features. Something I gotta think about. The strategy guide problem is something that predates the redesign. It's a problem having to do with that paper stock--we've had the same problem for months now.

"I'm not sure if it's a change in focus or what, but I think in the early part of the magazine, there's DEFINITELY less text. Sure the font is smaller, but those two-page screenshots with a partially filled sidebar of text are nowhere NEAR what a normal two-page article with regular sized screenshots would be. That's probably intentional...more like an extended caption to a two-page shot than an attempt at an "article."

I like the labeled sections of the screenshots, though. If you're going to fill more than a page with one shot, it's cool to point out stuff in various areas of it. Kinda makes that "picture is worth a thousand words" thing work, if you know what you're supposed to be looking at. =) "

Well, yeah--that's the point of that section, really. We're gonna be doing more with those 2-page spreads over the coming month that I think will help show what we're trying to do there. Basically, we modelled it after Sports Illustrated's "Leading Off" section. It's a way to open the editorial content of the magazine with art before getting into the "real" articles.

"That's all I'm going to say about it. If Jeff wants to hear more opinion outta me, I think it would be better to do in private - not because it's negative, just because it's touchy to publicly critique a competing mag."

Well, whatev. I can deal with the criticism. Just tell me: did ya like Scott McCloud's comic?

Why would gamers want big screenshots in a magazine when they can get the shots, at their actual resolution, on a website? Don't you think people buy a magazine because it's easier to read paper than text on a monitor?

I like big screenshots just because they look cool. I'm in favor of articles that get right to the point and don't mince words. I can get a copious amount of information about any game on the web. In a magazine I don't want a lot of information about a game, just the important stuff. I want a magazine to be magaziney -- fun to look at, fun to turn the pages, something I can skim and go back to later to read an article in full -- that kind of thing.

Also, I expect magazines, because of their prominence, to be the ones to get me first looks at big games like Worlds of Warcraft, etc.

Anyway, I've yet to see the new issue.

I tend to agree with both of you. I want a magazine to be entertaining, yes, something to waste my time while I'm stinking up the bathroom or to peruse on a lunch break.

I read magazines to give me an establishing shot on what's going on in the gaming world with the understanding that they get their information, access, and revenue from folks who participate in order to sell more current and upcoming games. In other words, with a big ass grain of salt. :) I don't expect to learn about, say, mods for Red Baron 3D or Falcon 4 (some of the more popular sims still cooking) or to read detailed essays about game design as an artform or a detailed exploration of the origins, influences and impact of a classic title like Civilization.

On the other hand, sometimes I'm surprised and I actually encounter an article that really sparks my curiousity and expands my understanding of the contexts that shape our perceptions of computer gaming today. Like that recent CGM article on Civilization by Tom Chick - that's the stuff I'd really like to see more of. The preview by Ben Sones was also informative though, as always, I feel that gaming magazines spend so much time looking ahead, and anticipating, that they never usually offer much context about that future.

This sort of doubleteaming is something, if perhaps not always as extensively, that should be done more often. Would I read it on a website? Sure. But sitting down with that much well written small print deserves a glossy printed page.

It was much more valuable to me than the corresponding number of pages taken up with cool screenshots.

I haven't seen the new CGW yet but I am a subscriber. :)

"Just tell me: did ya like Scott McCloud's comic?"

Yes. But, like everything McCloud has ever done he uses more panels than he has to. (IMO) That comic could have been just as effective, maybe moreso, at 4 pages as opposed to six. But his perspective, as always, is interesting and his perspective is refreshing. I'm glad you corralled him for something shorter on a monthly basis.

I like the bigger screens, particularly in the reviews, because they actually give the reader something that says "This is what it might look like on your monitor at home." Operation Flashpoint is a good example of what I'm talking about. That's a good thing. Avoid getting cutesy or funny... or offensive... with them though. If you want it to be like SI (Newsweek does it too), then take it seriously.

"Hmm. Is Bub a totally unbiased opinion? I think not... :-)"

Well, I'm not biased toward CGW, if that's what you're implying. I do some work for CGM, I used to work for PCGamer, I currently work for Maximum PC, LAPTOP, PCUpgrade, and other magazines that don't have "PC" in the title, so I might be biased against it... But not really. A freelancer wants all magazines/sites to succeed, 'cause, you never know. I'm just a "game fan" when reading mags though, and that's where my praise is coming from re: CGW's redesign.

-Andrew

"Yes. But, like everything McCloud has ever done he uses more panels than he has to. (IMO) That comic could have been just as effective, maybe moreso, at 4 pages as opposed to six. But his perspective, as always, is interesting and his perspective is refreshing"

fair enough, yeah. I happen to love the feature, "but I'm biased as a McCloud fan (unless he's rambling about micropayments :) ) Like I said, it was a one-shot at that length.


"Avoid getting cutesy or funny... or offensive... with them though. If you want it to be like SI (Newsweek does it too), then take it seriously. "

Yeah--good point. The idea is essentially what Mark said--to be "magaziney" and entertaining, but they also really are meant to help illustrate points, to highlight cool aspects of gameplay, etc. Yes it's eye candy but that doesn't mean it can't be devoid of intelligence or analysis.

And I am a STRONG advocate, in general, of tighter word counts and more succint writing. My favorite rock critic ever (okay, after Lester Bangs--a wonderful rambler) is Robert Christgau of the Village Voice, who can utterly NAIL an album, good or bad, in 50 words. That's NOT the model I'm going for--but it serves as a good point of reference. And the other point of reference is the sometimes interminable, undisciplined, rambing Web reviews I read--where the lack of a word count just serves as an excuse for a brain splooge with no organization and tightness and tons of extraneous, dull prose.

Wow--the morning caffeine has kicked in! Woo hoo!

And how come the snippiest comments always come from the people who post as Anonymous? Sheesh. Grow some 'nads!

"My favorite rock critic ever (okay, after Lester Bangs--a wonderful rambler) is Robert Christgau of the Village Voice, who can utterly NAIL an album, good or bad, in 50 words."

Uh oh - better stop complaining about 600 word page counts... ;)

"Don't you think people buy a magazine because it's easier to read paper than text on a monitor?"

No, I buy them for portability. Ever tried to drag a 19" monitor into the crapper?

"No, I buy them for portability. Ever tried to drag a 19" monitor into the crapper?"

I think my girlfriend would start throwing my stuff onto the lawn if she saw me disappear into the john with my laptop.

As for the comic in the latest CGM. A good friend of mine, Jim Beam, and myself set down to indulge in a critical review: Funkin' A!

I don't know jack from comics but this guy's sensibilities are right on the money.

> Ever tried to drag a 19" monitor into the crapper?

Tried to flush it too.

Wouldn't the cost of the mag be higher using two different kinds of paper stock internally? I've been curious as to why the strategy guide section uses a different stock other than just having a different feel for the mag, or to note a transition.

--- Alan

"Wouldn't the cost of the mag be higher using two different kinds of paper stock internally? I've been curious as to why the strategy guide section uses a different stock other than just having a different feel for the mag, or to note a transition. "

Yeah--I know. You'd think it would be more expensive. But it's the opposite, at least as far as the editorial staff is concerned. This is "free paper" for us--it's a full 16-page signature that does NOT count towards our ad/edit ratio. In English, this means that no matter how many ads our beloved sales weasels sell or don't every issue, we get this 16 pages on that paper for nuthin'--thus, a strategy section, ad-free, every month.

If we took it OFF that paper stock, then we essentially lose the section.

So--the problems that we're having w/the dark tone have to be balanced against the fact that we're getting all those pages for free. It's a compromise we'll take---but we're trying to futz with things in production to lighten the colors.

Aint the magazine business just fascinating!

Okay--back to Stronghold. I should yap about that game somewhere else in this forum--I'm really loving it!

--Jeff

where did all the writers like Desslok and Tom McDonald go? I dont like style over the substance those old schoolers provide.

"Yeah--I know. You'd think it would be more expensive. But it's the opposite, at least as far as the editorial staff is concerned. This is "free paper" for us--it's a full 16-page signature that does NOT count towards our ad/edit ratio. In English, this means that no matter how many ads our beloved sales weasels sell or don't every issue, we get this 16 pages on that paper for nuthin'--thus, a strategy section, ad-free, every month."

One of my favorite things about the new look Strategy Section lies in its portability. You can tear it from the rag, intact, for easier reference. Gotta like that....

Raphael

"where did all the writers like Desslok and Tom McDonald go? I dont like style over the substance those old schoolers provide."

Well, they didn't go anywhere. Tom McDonald has *three* articles in the issue--the debate w/the Anarchy Online guy, a 2-page review of Conquest, and a Conquest strategy article. No Desslock *this* issue, but there's other articles by "old schoolers" Charles Ardai, Loyd Case, and, hmmm, Bruce, can we call you "old school?" And next month, the king of old-schoolers, Johnny Wilson, is writing the Stronghold review!

I missed the actual columns in it. As was touched on above I can find out just about anything I want to about a game on the internet, I read this magazine because I want a specific writers view point on something. That being said overall I enjoyed the feel, I like the bigger screenshots. I have to ask though, didn't you publish an eq strategy guide not that long ago?

We still have columns--we just moved them up front. What did change, column-wise, was that they're not genre-centric anymore. I just felt like it was getting old, and it was time for a change. Both other mags do the genre column thing too--I felt like maybe we should try something different for a change.

I wrestled with this a lot, as anyone will tell you, because I've always been a big fan of those columns. But in the end no one on staff really disagreed with me that a new approach was needed and worth trying. Frankly, it was getting way too difficult to even get 6 columnists a month to want to *write* a genre column--very telling, I think. Many of the genres are in decline, or even if they aren't, sometimes there's not anything overly compelling to talk about other than rehashing the same ol' shit month after month. "Good books for wargamers"--yadda yadda. Man, that's been done to death, and is *still* done to death.

I think all the guys who wrote genre columns for us are great writers---so I still want them to write columns. Just not a generic "sim column" or whatever. Thus, Geryk's "postmortem" column, which is a re-analysis of a game we've already reviewed. Or the "CGW Deathmatch", where ideas can be debated. I'd rather the writers not be tied down to the same ol' genre breakdowns--and I think it will lead in the long run to more lively columns. I hope.

The EQ strategy guide is a reprint for newsstand readers who are getting the free EQ disc with the mag...

>Basically, we modelled it after Sports Illustrated's "Leading Off" section.

Glad to see we're not the only ones who look at successful mainstream pubs for ideas. Though sometimes I wonder if that's a bad idea...

>Just tell me: did ya like Scott McCloud's comic?

Yes and no. I liked the sentiment, but it was a one-page editorial exploded into a six-page comic, and I don't like Scott's art that much. I'd much rather have just had a page of text with an illustration and five more pages of game coverage.

>Well, whatev. I can deal with the criticism.

I didn't mean to imply that everything else would be criticism. That's not true at all. I just think it probably crosses some sort of professionalism line or something to go blabbing about a competitor's product on public message boards, unless they come right out and ask you. And even then, if all they're interested in is the feedback, it could just as well be done in private.

BTW Jeff, I'm in total agreement about the word counts and succinct articles. And the word "succinct," which is just plain fun to say. It's been my experience that giving people less play room makes them think about what's important to say and how best to say it. A writer who can lay down a 3500 word feature that keeps its focus and doesn't ramble always has my respect. It's sometimes really hard to fit what you want to say into like 300 words or whatever, but once you do, it's almost always better-written than the long ones.

"I like the labeled sections of the screenshots, though. If you're going to fill more than a page with one shot, it's cool to point out stuff in various areas of it. Kinda makes that "picture is worth a thousand words" thing work, if you know what you're supposed to be looking at."

I think it works really well for some games, and not as well for others. For instance, it worked great with the Sims spread. 3D action games and sims derive less benefit--there I think you'd be better off without the extra text cluttering up the image.

Overall I like the new desgn, but the strategy section does need some tweaking. This may be just specific to the Warlords part but many of the screenshots are just way to dark. You can hardly see whats in the shot in several of them.

I liked the 'CGW Deathmatch' section. Glad to see the AO rep have to squirm a little trying to defend the 'train wreck' that was AO. Maybe Funcoom should send a few guys over to Mythic to get a few tips on how to launch a MMORPG well.

---

Quote:

Maybe Funcoom should send a few guys over to Mythic to get a few tips on how to launch a MMORPG well.

---

>DAoC may very well be the most smoothly-launched MMORPG to date --

Asheron's Call's launch was very smooth too. Actually, other than needing more servers initially, EQ's launch was pretty smooth as well. As were the launches for all the older online games, like Neverwinter Nights and Meridian 59. It's a bit of a myth that MMORPGs don't have smooth launches, because of Ultima Online and the two recent fiascos of Anarchy Online and, especially, WW2 Online.

I think the problems that plagued Ultima Online and Anarchy Online were primarily caused by unrealistic, overly complex designs. DaoC is really a pretty simple game, and Mythic ensured it got all the basics right, and polished, before adding in additional content and complexity.

Stefan

Also: Jumpgate. No problems at all at launch.

EQ had some problems in that they kept having to take the servers down, but those only lasted a week. As for AO, I think it had less to do with complex design and more to do with confused design. I cancelled my account because I never knew what the new rules were going to be when I logged in. There was a good chance you'd log in and suddenly all of your equipment would be useless to you. Which happened to me. Twice.

DAOC is no less complex than AO was at its launch, with the possible exception of the individual mission areas. More complex in some ways, because of the RvR system and the variety of classes in the game. That it launched without a significant hitch seems like a confirmation that Mythic was really interested in the input of the beta testers, unlike FunCom who knew about AO's problems when it launched.

-Ron

Asheron's Call didn't have the same numbers at launch, though, did they? I could be mistaken, but I was under the impression that it was a relatively small start, and gradual building up of the community, making it easier to cope with the numbers. Again, I could be mistaken, but doesn't DAoC already have more subscribers than AC?

I'm only impressed by the smoothness of the launch due to the fact that so many people were there from day 1. I'm curious about launch numbers from other MMORPGS, but I've gotten the impression that DAoC had more subscribers on its first day than did UO, AO, or AC. That's why I'm impressed. Am I wrong?

Oh, and back on topic -- I'm pretty fond of the new look. I liked the comic, but I'm thankful that it's not ALWAYS gonna be six pages long. The new look, though, overall, is great, I think.

"I've gotten the impression that DAoC had more subscribers on its first day than did UO, AO, or AC. That's why I'm impressed. Am I wrong?"

Yes, I believe there was a press release touting they had over 100K subscribers, faster than everyone including EQ.

Hi All,

I agree with Jeff Lackey on word count. Perhaps THE WORST reviews I've read are the semi-hobby website's 1500 word diatribes that describe which hot-key to tap to switch between windowed and full screen versions of the game, and exactly which finger should tap it. We don't need that detail. Decribe what a game is like, what it's trying to do, and if it does it well.

To that end, a few less words in CGW is just fine. As I said in the Video Game Almanac, Jeff is perhaps the best writer in the industry. A magazine published under his editorial direction will continue to be the most succintly written mag we can get.

I don't judge a review by the number of words. The question that should be asked is if the review does a good job with the word count it has. While a short review can be more concise, a long review may have additional detail that has to be cut from a short review. But a 300 word review and a 1500 word review could both be good reviews. I think it really depends on the game too. A short review is fine for a game with little depth.

From a freelancing perspective, there are also financial issues. Shorter reviews are not necessarily easier or more swiftly written than long reviews, so time management isn't any easier for them. And if compensation is tied to word count...

I judge reviews entirely by wordcount. The more words, the better, preferably broken up into as many categories as possible, including:

GRAPHICS
SOUND
BOX ART
INSTALL SIZE
NUMBER OF CDS
SIMILARITY TO QUAKE
SIMILARITY TO I'78
% OF GAME ELEMENTS NEVER SEEN BEFORE IN AMERICA
# OF ERECTIONS ENCOUNTERED DURING GAME

Preposterous. You can't just use wordcount. You have to factor in the size of the words, too.

>. But a 300 word review and a 1500 word review could both be good reviews.

Completely agree. Or longer ones too. It's probably more difficult to do an effective "short" review, since you have to minimize your discussion of what you likely feel are good points (and reduce the number of points you can make at all). I probably prefer well written lengthy reviews (1700 word+) because I enjoy the additional analysis -- but badly written lengthy reviews are really terrible.

Stefan

Brevity does a better job of protecting the writer from himself, and by proxy, from us. So I'd make that the rule.

Yeah, in a manner of speaking I agree with Stephan. Lengthy reviews can be good if well written. All things being equal, however, I prefer a concise review. I loved GamePower's original format (350 word reviews).

That's good, Jeff. And very true. :)

Mark

Except for a couple of columns and skimming the Conquest review, I haven't really had a chance to give the new format a good going over. Some of what I'm hearing here sounds good, though. If "postmortem" is a look at games months after they've been reviewed to see how they are doing, I think that's a great idea. I also like the idea of giving up on genres. Give the editors more flexibility to write about whatever is fascinating them THAT month, instead of making them stick to an niche. More productive, that way. Big screenshots are a fine idea. It seems to me that most of the time I really couldn't see what was in a screenshot before. Especially with earthtone pallets.
One thing that did stand out was that I had trouble finding the table of contents. I was flipping through the book, but I came across Jeff's "Change is good" (or more appropriately "Please remain calm!") column, surrounded by ads, and I didn't actually find the table of contents.
Now, if they could just redesign my delivery, so that I received the CD-ROM with my magazine that I paid for...

CGW's starting to look and feel a bit
"Maxim"-esque, which isn't necessarily a bad
thing. As long as no scantily clad, well-oiled
women and multi-page spreads with glossy
photos of $1000 sunglasses and trendy,
freakish European shoes that look like alien
larvae start showing up, I'll be happy.

I might make an exception for a scantily clad,
well-oiled Jeff Green...as long as he doesn't
wear those goofy shoes.

"I might make an exception for a scantily clad,
well-oiled Jeff Green."

Oh my GOD! You're scaring me!

"I might make an exception for a scantily clad,
well-oiled Jeff Green...as long as he doesn't
wear those goofy shoes."

Sparky: have your people call my people.

Ugh. And here I'd finally gotten that image of the well-oiled Jeff coming out of his job interview out of my head after all these years...

Of course, the disturbing part was that the oil started out on Johnny Wilson...

...Denny, who still hasn't seen the new CGW. :-(

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew!
Denny, that was some kind of seriously wrong line you crossed there. :)

Plus, please don't give the secrets of my career away. I'm saving them for the VH-1 special.

I just perused the TV Guide (okay, TiVo
listings, I'm a nerd) and there it is, next
Tuesday at 10pm on "VH1: BEHIND THE
JOYSTICK":

"Raised kudzu-poor in Florida's Okefenokee
Swamp, Jeff Green and his eleven sisters
helped their widowed father run an albino
alligator farm. Young Jeff was in charge of
whitewashing the alligators. To this day, many
aren't aware that four of his fingers (and a few
rumored other parts) aren't real.

Jeff rose like the last Pooka in Dig-Dug
through the ranks of Mac hardware reviewers
to lead a life envied by adolescent boys
everywhere (second only to the life of the guy
who dusts the sand off of Sports Illustrated
swimsuit models, and perhaps third to a
taste-tester at the "Yoo-Hoo" factory).

But suddenly, in the blink of a bloodshot eye,
the dream became a NIGHTMARE."

You know, the thing about his eleven sisters
explains a LOT about his penchant for
gingham dresses and sunbonnets. And I can't
wait to hear Neal Schon trash Jeff!

"I might make an exception for a scantily clad,
well-oiled Jeff Green."

As spoken by the shark from "Sherman's Lagoon."

"Jeff rose like the last Pooka in Dig-Dug"

LOL

"Of course, the disturbing part was that the oil started out on Johnny Wilson..."

Oh, Denny. How could you do that? As if the image of lube-Jeff wasn't bad enough, you gotta throw Johnny in the mix? Next thing you know I'm gonna be having weird dreams involving Scooter, TC, and a huge vat of butterscotch pudding. Damn you!

If you ask me, I would've gone for caramel.

This thread has gone wrong on so many levels...

Okay, I finally got around to reading this months' CGW, and can give some feedback on the new look.

Overall, I like it. The pictures are easier to see, especially screen shots. I'd keep away from small screenshots on the "brown-paper" section, though. That paper doesn't seem to do well with it.
The review rating system seemed a little more confusing to me. I don't remember exactly why; the rating scale may have just been in a different place than I was used to. The reviews themselves seemed the same as always: In other words, pretty well thought-out and reported. I've always liked CGW reviews.
I like that the editors aren't stuck in their nichy little genres anymore with regards to their editorials. That should be more interesting.
I'm neutral on the six-page comic strip. Personally, I like a magazine with a litle variety. Games magazines tend to be relentlessly focused on previews and reviews, wihout speaking to the underlying culture of the people that play those games. When I was kid and read Dragon magazine, I used to love the monthly comic strips in the back, the lampoon articles, and all the other more farcical (sp) stuff that complemented the more serious stuff of RPG play. You guys say it all the time: These are games. A magazine about games shouldn't be so dark, brooding and serious as most game mags are. So, naturally I'm pleased to see CGW lightening up over the past year or so, and am fine with special features that address the people who play the game (and, incidentally, buy the magazine), instead of just reviewing a bunch of games. That, to me, was the most insightful bit that I picked up. The return of Dumpster Diving, the introduction of Post Mortem, these are good things. If it saves me money, or if there is an opportunity for real fun from a game that started as a dog, letting me know gives me a better chance to enjoy myself, and still not break the bank. Good stuff. Now all you need is to get Tom on Board with Shoot Club, then have a series of articles where you go visit the real Shoot Clubs out there (readers will send in if you ask), and show everyone how it's done, what is being played, what kind of games work, etc. That would, I think, be cool.

Sorry for the rant at the end. Overall, I think it's very positive. The pages are still a little to thin and slick for my taste, but they look good, and I don't notice (so far) anything that hasn't either been improved, or, at worst, maintained it's former level of use.

Good job!