Glad to see you got a chance to write a farewell GameSpin. Closure is cool. I hope you can sell the column somewhere -- it's too good to just be discontinued.

Now please send me a copy of Civ 3 for evaluation.

THANKS FOR THE KIND THOUGHTS, YOU MORON!

Yeah, it was nice of the GC boys to put up one last column. I was going to write it for free since they told me to keep it short, but then they told me to bill for it. Schweet!

So basically you got paid to say goodbye and to plug your site? You da man :)

Heh. Hey, those guys were nice to me. I just wanted to wrap things up. I certainly didn't ask to do one last column because I wanted one more assignment.

My editor told me to link to this site, too.

CNET was always nothing but nice to me. Even the Alliance program, which ended abruptly, was handled well. We got a month's notice. Contrast that with UGO which retroactively cut payouts to some sites. I know one site that had their payout cut from $45,000 to $15,000 retroactively. They had full-time staff too, people who worked those months and who were paid.

So I have no hard feelings about CNET. They're just another victim in the Internet downturn.

Well, since gamespot and gamecenter were essentially two rooms in the same house, I knew I wouldn't be really surprised if one of them passed on. Gamespot, being a bit more "glossy" and multimedia enhanced (Do they have video of every game ever or what?) did seem the clear "winner" between the two. However, gamecenter appealed to me with its more "serious tone" if you would call it that. It just didn't read like it was focused toward a more adolescent market.

I find Gamespot to be a very cluttered site. I really liked the nice streamlined look over at Gamecenter. The reviews also seemed to gel more with the way I ended up feeling about the games too. Oh well, guess I'll have to learn to love Gamespot.

Gamespot is the larger site in terms of traffic. It would have been nice if they could have merged the sites rather than shut one down, but CNET's running a bit scared with the whole Internet collapse.

Personally, it's a big blow. Gamecenter represented the single largest source of my freelance income.

I just got this email. I didn't even know CNET was translated into Chinese:

Hello Mark

I am your Game Spin artical Chinese translator in Taiwan Cnet.
Too Bad to heard that gamecenter is closed.
This mean that my part time income will reduce.
Thank Game Spin , I have chance to read throughout your humor and wit but
not so easy to translate article, but I enjoy it!
Hope to see your new article soon.

Julian Huang


Ah, just another part of this whole thing that makes me feel a little sad.

Damn Mark... I would pay you to do freelance at GamersClick, but I don't think t-shirt sales will really cover your pay :)

Heh -- t-shirt sales power the New Economy! That's what its seemingly coming down to.

No kidding :\ (I figure this place is a little more sedate than PlanetCrap heh)
It's sad to see it happen, but merchandising is the only way to go... but again... I could pay you in t-shirts I suppose. heh. At E3 we're hopefully going to be passing out novelty condoms with "GamersClick" written on the side *prays to the gods of merchandising that some place will print novelty condoms*
heh... Need any of those? :P

Okay, I can't help myself.

GamersClick, or GamersDick?

Apologies in advance.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Heh... good pun. I hadn't even thought of that. Hmmmmmm.

Tom Ohle is working on an interesting new kind of popup ad. Check it out:

http://hgames.com/hg2k/

What I like about it is that it's a bit less annoying than traditional popups. It's there when the page loads and to destroy it all you have to do is click elsewhere. Just curious to know what people think.

Yeah, the cool thing about that ad is that it's basically an html page slapped anywhere you want it (we've got it defaulted to be dead-center), so it can also contain images, Flash, etc. It'd be nice to get it off the ground... could revitalize the market a bit.

"Tom Ohle is working on an interesting new kind of popup ad."

Not bad, Tom. I like it much better than separate windows, interstitials, or fat ads crouching in the middle of text. In fact, I think I'd trade banner ads for that sort of pop-up if it meant better use of real estate on the actual page.

-Tom

The thing about a banner ad vs. Tom's popup is that a banner ad is on every page and is relatively unobtrusive. If you're getting paid for the number of times the ad is displayed, it's hard to dump the banner ad.

Tom's slick popup is nice, but I think the level of annoyance with it would grow if it appeared on every page in a site. It's kind of a front-page only ad, I think. You can undoubtedly get a higher rate for it, but you still need to keep the banners going.

Yeah, definitely. I have no false hopes of it completely replacing popups. I know for a fact that I'd take a site off my Bookmarks list if it had that on ever single page. It would definitely have to be a compliment to traditional banners.

Actually... maybe something like CNET's ads, coupled with this popup may be a good idea. Nothing as bandwidth-straining as the CNET ones, just a fair-sized advertisement in the middle of the article. I dunno, just a thought, I suppose.

You know what disturbs me about websites? Editorial people fretting over ads, designing more profitable ads, debating how to make them more affective... there was always supposed to be a church/state thing between advertising and editorial, but that's gone away. It's a shame, really. It ain't supposed to be like that.

"It's a shame, really. It ain't supposed to be like that."

It should probably be like Consumer Reports. Don't take any ads because the risk of being comprised is there if you do. Good luck getting a business like that to fly.

The editorial/advertising separation requires more people than most websites can afford. You need separate departments connected by an over-arching management structure. That's unrealistic for a small site.

That is also no guarantee. The LATimes took a lot of heat last year for a journalistic blow job in a special issue of LATimes Magazine that focused on The Staples Center (I'm being pissy - the Staples-requested style is to leave off the "The"). There was an undisclosed profit-sharing arrangement between the paper and The Staples Center for the money generated by the special issue (it was about $4 million, IIRC). Otis Chandler himself came out of retirement to condemn the arrangement, and a few months later the paper was sold. The story was broken and pursued by The New Times Weekly, so go to their site if you want more details. www.newtimesla.com.

If a consumer-oriented site or publication accepts advertising dollars from the makers of the products it covers, there is no guarantee that the editorial side isn't influenced by the ad buys. If you want to be completely pure, don't take ads.

Ironically, most gaming sites don't get ad dollars from the game companies. Who's more likely to feel pressured to give a good review? The magazine with $250,000 of ads sold every month to game companies, or the website with a banner ad for a credit card?

Anyway, it's like Supertanker says. Small sites don't have the luxury of an ad sales person. We do our own layout too. No graphic artists here.

>>If a consumer-oriented site or publication accepts advertising dollars from the makers of the products it covers, there is no guarantee that the editorial side isn't influenced by the ad buys.

Sure there's a guarantee. I'll make it right here: there's no pressure, or influence, on the games we preview or review based on advertising. It's as simple as that. I get to personally decide what does or does not run in the magazine; it's solely my decision. If I was being told what to cover, I'd quit.

(You will find a correlation between games advertised and covered because, duh, those things are coordinated by marketing departments.)

What you're talking about is the "appearance" of influence, which is unavoidable in almost any venture that accepts advertising of any form. But there's a big difference between appearance and actual influence.

>>If you want to be completely pure, don't take ads.

A "pure" publication would require individuals to be completely incapable of bias. Even Consumer Reports has come under accusations of bias in their handling of the rollover problems of SUVs.

>>Who's more likely to feel pressured to give a good review? The magazine with $250,000 of ads sold every month to game companies, or the website with a banner ad for a credit card?

Oh, I see. Now the magazines are more likely to be corrupt again. You're forgetting those ad dollars are split amongst multiple accounts, and that there's NOWHERE ELSE FOR THEM TO ADVERTISE IN PRINT. Canceling ads is an empty threat.

If you cancel an ad online there are 300 other websites to choose from. If you cancel your ad in our magazine, you're probably already in CGW and PC Gamer. So where do you go? EGM? Spin? Rolling Stone? You lose by not reaching our readers and you probably promised retail a three-month ad campaign in our magazine, so pulling it wouldn't really endear you to them.

By the way, which gaming websites don't have any game advertising?

>>Small sites don't have the luxury of an ad sales person. We do our own layout too. No graphic artists here.

If you don't have that luxury, why are you trying to make it a business venture? Why have ads at all? I pay a whopping $9.95/month for hosting on my website, and it in theory has "unlimited" bandwidth (though I have little desire to test what the actual limit of "unlimited" is).

>>The editorial/advertising separation requires more people than most websites can afford.

Then maybe those websites shouldn't be commercial entities because they can't afford the manpower to do it right. (This assumes separating advertising and editorial is indeed the right thing to do.) It'd be like opening a store and not having enough money to pay for another employee, so you end up working 12-hours a day 7-days a week.

A website without full-time ad guys will likely never be successful, because it's a full-time gig. You need to hammer marketing people on the phone, take them out to lunch, work out deals, blah blah blah. Smaller sites could contract out to freelance ad guys who might do it just on commission. They must be out there. Or alternately, they could contact some existing editorial publication and offer a revenue sharing thing, so long as everyone gets a cut.

>>That is also no guarantee.

Nope, it certainly ain't. And it's getting harder and harder to maintain separation, mainly because READERS don't get outraged enough by the intrusion of advertising. I can only hold back the flood so much, and for so long. But most people don't know or, more importantly, don't care that editorial could be turned into ad copy somewhere down the road. It would be so subtle no one would notice.

Did people stop reading the L.A. Times? Nope, they probably took a minor PR hit then kept going strong. And later they'll make that same deal because they'll see that the cost (in terms of reader outrage) was low, but the uptrun (in terms of money) was high.

I'd be really pissed if I'd been the writer on that piece, and been made unaware of the relationship, which if I recall was what happened.

While I do agree with you, Steve, in that advertising and editorial should be completely seperate entities, you definitely have to look at where I'm personally coming from here. I do the following jobs on my sites: Graphic Designer, Editor-in-Chief, Public Relations Manager, Journalist, Writer, Producer... you get the idea. I'm just trying to find a way for my sites to make some extra cash, and if that means developing some new form of advertising, so be it.

>>you definitely have to look at where I'm personally coming from here.

Oh, I understand, but on a daily basis I get accused by people like Mark of being corrupted by advertising when I'm further removed from it than most. I'm not even supposed to talk to ad salespeople from companies (because I've pissed them off in the past by saying the official "bad" word in advertising: "No.")

When you really think about it, it makes no sense for me to create or slant editorial coverage to suit advertisers. I stand to get nothing from it except maybe fired because my job performance goes down. Our ad guys get to make six figure salaries selling ads but editorial doesn't get a bonus when circulation goes up, or renewal rates are up. If I'm picking games to cover based on ad dollars, those may not be the games readers want to read about and circ goes down, as do renewal rates. These are teh things I'm judged by, so why would I screw up my own job performance by letting myself be influenced by ads?

(If you think it's because I'm a good company man--hah, that's a funny one--that would be wrong as well. In theory, one could boost newsstand revenue to a point where ad sales would be merely additional profit, but in order to do that you need GOOD CONTENT, not ad deals.)

>>I'm just trying to find a way for my sites to make some extra cash, and if that means developing some new form of advertising, so be it.

Understand that I do sympathize, but since we're all sorta lumped into one category of game journalists, you'll have to excuse me for jumping on my high horse about the separation, because... well, I can. It's a strength of being bigger.

I think online sites have traditionally blurred advertising and editorial, partly out of necessity (as is your case) and also because readers are more receptive because its free. Since people are paying money for a magazine, they do have different expectations, one of which is editorial with a greater apperance of independence. No trading previews for ad banners, that sort of thing.

"Sure there's a guarantee. I'll make it right here: there's no pressure, or influence, on the games we preview or review based on advertising. It's as simple as that. I get to personally decide what does or does not run in the magazine; it's solely my decision. If I was being told what to cover, I'd quit."

That's not a built-in guarantee enforced by the way the business is set up, though. That's your personal one. I can make the same guarantee. Anyone can.

"What you're talking about is the "appearance" of influence, which is unavoidable in almost any venture that accepts advertising of any form. But there's a big difference between appearance and actual influence."

Of course. Just like a person accepting ad money who also writes editorial content can't avoid that "appearance of influence." I think we can agree that it's just an appearance, though, can't we? I can give you my personal guarantee that's all it is.

"Oh, I see. Now the magazines are more likely to be corrupt again. You're forgetting those ad dollars are split amongst multiple accounts, and that there's NOWHERE ELSE FOR THEM TO ADVERTISE IN PRINT. Canceling ads is an empty threat."

I wasn't accusing anyone of anything. You bemoaned the lack of separation between ad sales and editorial at small sites, and I just pointed out the obvious -- the big ad dollars are going to the magazines. If there was likely to be undue influence, well, follow the money, as the saying goes.

I don't think that there is. I just think that magazines are just as likely, if not more so, to be corrupted by advertising.

"By the way, which gaming websites don't have any game advertising?"

Most of them. Blue's, VE, Stomped. Avault seems to get a lot, but they're more the exception. Gamespot doesn't have a single one. If you check I think you'll see that a game ad is the exception most of the time.

"If you don't have that luxury, why are you trying to make it a business venture? Why have ads at all? I pay a whopping $9.95/month for hosting on my website, and it in theory has "unlimited" bandwidth (though I have little desire to test what the actual limit of "unlimited" is)."

If we can end up making some extra money, why shouldn't we? Maybe if we hang on and grow the site, the Internet economy will turn around and we might have a more viable business? Maybe Rupert Murdoch will stumble upon our site and be hypnotized by the giant eyeball and offer us some large bags of cash?

"Oh, I understand, but on a daily basis I get accused by people like Mark of being corrupted by advertising when I'm further removed from it than most."

I just want to make it clear that I wasn't accusing you, or anyone at any of the mags, of anything. I was just pointing out that the review product ad dollars flow to the magazines, not the websites. There is actually more of a divide between editorial and advertising with most websites, since they end up selling ads for products they don't review.

"I think online sites have traditionally blurred advertising and editorial, partly out of necessity...."

Actually, up until recently, most sites have had affliate relationships or an agreement with an ad broker and never sold a single ad. CNET or Snowball or UGO or Gamefan sold the ads for their affliates.

It's only been with the Internet economy turning sour that sites are starting to look to sell their own ads as a way of making a little more money.

>>That's not a built-in guarantee enforced by the way the business is set up, though. That's your personal one. I can make the same guarantee. Anyone can.

It's actually enforced by the way a publication is set up. It's why you have an ad director, an editor and an art director. All separate divisions.

>>Just like a person accepting ad money who also writes editorial content can't avoid that "appearance of influence."

Only a site like this is the person writing editorial directly accepting ad money.

In fact, I have to think about this a bit more, but I'm not sure about the ethics of using freelancers who are entering into direct financial agreements with game publishers. How would it look to a reader if they knew their reviewer was receiving a few hundred dollars from a game company on the side, even if it had nothing to do with the review itself?

When it was indirect, a la a game network, it was more abstracted, and you weren't dealing directly with companies. But if you're going to be making sales calls for your own site on companies as well as editorial ones for editorial sites, that opens up a whole can of worms.

>>I don't think that there is. I just think that magazines are just as likely, if not more so, to be corrupted by advertising.

So because we're already getting the money, we're more likely to be corrupted by it? Hmm, I'd think the people in the more precarious position, the ones not getting the money, would be more likely to do "anything" to get it...

>>It's only been with the Internet economy turning sour that sites are starting to look to sell their own ads as a way of making a little more money.

I should say websites are more in touch with ad sales. Hell, I didn't even know what a CPM was until the web came around. Any editorial person on a website can quote you ad rates, CPM rates, they all know click-thrus, impressions, blah blah blah. I couldn't even begin to describe much of the magazine ad terminology, beyond the bare minimum I pick up via overheard conversations.

>>There is actually more of a divide between editorial and advertising with most websites, since they end up selling ads for products they don't review.

Well, okay. Whatever. I'm not really going to try to convince you otherwise, since clearly you have a greater insight into the inner workings of magazines and websites.

Oh Steve, you take everything so seriously :) heh

as a side note, has anyone else seen Hannibal? Pretty cool show.

"Well, okay. Whatever. I'm not really going to try to convince you otherwise, since clearly you have a greater insight into the inner workings of magazines and websites."

Oh c'mon. All you have to do is open your eyes. Visit the gaming sites. See how many ad banners you see for games. That's all I'm saying. The ad money from game companies isn't going to gaming sites. It's going to the magazines.

Now, if you want to take that as an accusation, there's not much else I can say. It's not. It's just an observation.

"I should say websites are more in touch with ad sales. Hell, I didn't even know what a CPM was until the web came around. Any editorial person on a website can quote you ad rates, CPM rates, they all know click-thrus, impressions, blah blah blah. I couldn't even begin to describe much of the magazine ad terminology, beyond the bare minimum I pick up via overheard conversations."

Impressions are like circulation. I'll assume you know about that at the magazine. I have no idea what our clickthroughs are here. We don't track that. All we track are pageviews.

I really only ever read GameCenter for GameSpin, or if I was in a hurry, so I'll fess right up that it's passing doesn't particularly distress me. I found them unreliable, taking weeks off around Christmas without even a note to let the readers know, and spotty with updates ever since. I did like the short, straight articles, though, and liked Mark's column. It's how I met him, back in '98, I guess.

The thing I liked most about GameSpin was that it remembered what games were supposed to be: fun. It didn't worry about pixel counts or what type of dolby emulation a game had. Mark would play a game and tell you that it sucked or it rocked, or maybe just sort of sat there, pet-rock-like, teasing you by making you think you might learn to like it eventually. If a company had what sounded like a goofy idea, he'd say so, then apologize a year later if he was wrong. I liked that. I liked that it was a fun column, sort of a cross between a business column and a gossip column, and a much better read than most of the other gaming stuff I've seen. It's too bad GameSpot didn't take it up. I blame the editors. They seem to look either like LA gangers (Kasavin) or constipated (Chin). No sense of humor. So intent and so serious when talking about games. Hai-yah.

I'd suggest pitching it to Computer Games, but Bauman seems unusually grouchy and quick to anger when posting on this board, for some reason.

Ah, well. Best of luck in finding a new home for GameSpin, Mark. It'd be a real shame if it just went away. Maybe CGW?

">>That's not a built-in guarantee enforced by the way the business is set up, though. That's your personal one. I can make the same guarantee. Anyone can.

"It's actually enforced by the way a publication is set up. It's why you have an ad director, an editor and an art director. All separate divisions."

No, you're not understanding what I'm saying. What's to stop the publisher from coming to you and saying, "Go easy on Activision games. They're spending a lot on ads with us." Now your answer would be, "If he or she did that, I'd quit." So we're back again at your personal guarantee.

I'm not saying that happens or has happened, so don't get upset. It's just that the organization you work for accepts money from the makers of the products you review, just like we do. Saying that the people handling the money are in a separate department is no assurance of anything. It just means that they're in a separate department.

If we want to be idealistic, then the ideal situation is for a consumer-oriented publication, print or web, to not accept advertising money from the makers of the products it reviews. Wouldn't that present the best image to the readers? "We do not accept ad money for the products we review."

Of course that would mean that the magazines would cease to exist, most likely, so that won't work. Surprisingly enough, it would be very easy for a number of gaming websites to agree to that condition. Whether they could find enough revenue otherwise to survive is another question.

"In fact, I have to think about this a bit more, but I'm not sure about the ethics of using freelancers who are entering into direct financial agreements with game publishers. How would it look to a reader if they knew their reviewer was receiving a few hundred dollars from a game company on the side, even if it had nothing to do with the review itself?"

I don't know. You've got Tom Chick and Mark Asher are doing it, and so is Erik Wolpaw at OMM. Now Tom doesn't talk to these people, so he's in another department, so to speak. But he benefits from any ads we sell, sort of like how people who write for a magazine benefit from ad sales.

You should probably also rule out all freelancers who have ever accepted airline tickets and hotel accomodations from game companies in order to attend press events. Let's see, that would eliminate all the freelancers who go to Microsoft's Gamestock.

And of course, and I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but if you really are intent on presenting the best face possible to the readers, you'll stop accepting advertising from the game companies.

Finally, perhaps CGM should divest itself of Chips and Bits. What's a review publication doing as part of a business that also sells the products that are reviewed? Separate departments?

Now please don't get mad at me for saying the above. I'm just pointing out the many tentacles that are entertwined throughout CGM. Why just lop off one or two? Cut them all off! Be pure!

"I'd suggest pitching it to Computer Games, but Bauman seems unusually grouchy and quick to anger when posting on this board, for some reason."

Steve and I are a couple of grouches. That's just the way it is.

What's ironic about this discussion is that Steve can put far more money into my pocket than I'll get from any ads we sell for this site, so my arguing with him is pretty silly. I suppose that shows how easily I'll be corrupted by the evil game companies and their ad dollars.

You're all forgetting the readers in this. We aren't total sheep, waiting to be led by the benevolent or malevolent editors and writers. I suppose I can only speak for myself, but I understand that the ads pay for the magazines & sites, and that there may be pressure from that for preferential treatment. However, I expect that journalistic ethics will win the day, and neutrality will be the rule and not the exception. I've seen this quote attributed to several politicians in reference to lobbyists: "If you can't take their money, eat their food, drink their liquor, and then still vote against them, you don't belong here." Same goes for game reviews. If you take the free copies, take the trips, take the food, you must be able to still slam the crap games.

When I think this rule has been violated, I don't forget it. I'll never trust a certain reviewer's opinion again because I bought a 4x space game based on his review before I learned that he also wrote the official strategy guide. It was a crap game, and his was the only positive review that I recall. His public explanation was lame (I think it was something like "I forgot I wrote both"), and that destroyed his credibility with me.

"I suppose I can only speak for myself, but I understand that the ads pay for the magazines & sites, and that there may be pressure from that for preferential treatment. However, I expect that journalistic ethics will win the day, and neutrality will be the rule and not the exception."

Yeah, I agree. The way to judge a publication isn't by who is handling the business matters behind the scenes but by looking at its content. If you feel it's fair-minded, great. If you feel that it's tilted towards the advertisers, read something else.

So just read our stuff. Make that your litmus test.

>>Oh c'mon. All you have to do is open your eyes. Visit the gaming sites. See how many ad banners you see for games. That's all I'm saying. The ad money from game companies isn't going to gaming sites. It's going to the magazines.

All I see nowadays are house ads. But the last two years you've mostly seen game ads on game sites.

>>Oh Steve, you take everything so seriously :) heh

It's my job TO take these types of issues seriously.

>>Impressions are like circulation. I'll assume you know about that at the magazine.

I know what our circulation is, but I don't know how it's tabulated or what we do to actually boost it (beyond making a better product). We have a circulation director whose job it is to handle that stuff.

"We have a circulation director whose job it is to handle that stuff."

Our version of a circulation editor is free software program that reports back to us. Our host only tracks bandwidth.

>>What's to stop the publisher from coming to you and saying, "Go easy on Activision games. They're spending a lot on ads with us."

That would still require that I actually follow through. That's why it's better to have two different people/divisions doing ads and editorial. I could say, "Sure, you bet. Go easy on Activision" and then do absolutely nothing. A publisher doesn't normally check every editorial page.

>>Saying that the people handling the money are in a separate department is no assurance of anything. It just means that they're in a separate department.

No, but that separation DOES make it easier to maintain a distance.

>>Surprisingly enough, it would be very easy for a number of gaming websites to agree to that condition. Whether they could find enough revenue otherwise to survive is another question.

They could agree to do that but they'd quickly shut down. Despite the good demographics, most mainstream advertisers still don't associate themselves with gaming I think because it's perceived as a "nerd" habit. And they reach them in other places.

If I was The Gap, would I rather reach people in Rolling Stone or a computer game publication? Or which thing would you rather associate with the Gap? Musicians or geeks?

"That would still require that I actually follow through. That's why it's better to have two different people/divisions doing ads and editorial. I could say, "Sure, you bet. Go easy on Activision" and then do absolutely nothing. A publisher doesn't normally check every editorial page."

Yeah, I agree with this. It's better to have separate departments. Most websites are smaller operations, though, and most can't afford this. That doesn't mean their editorial coverage is compromised.

I wouldn't be surprised if smaller magazines often have contact between advertisers and editors too.

>>I don't know. You've got Tom Chick and Mark Asher are doing it, and so is Erik Wolpaw at OMM.

Actually Chet runs OMM. Erik is really a contributor. And they're on UGO, so they're not directly selling ads. But yeah, he could be lumped in too.

>>But he benefits from any ads we sell, sort of like how people who write for a magazine benefit from ad sales.

It's not a direct relationship. Game companies aren't cutting checks to writers.

>>You should probably also rule out all freelancers who have ever accepted airline tickets and hotel accomodations from game companies in order to attend press events.

Again, it's not entering into a direct financial arrangement with a company. They're not cutting the writer a check for an article.

You can twist it all you want (free games? payment!), but this is an example of directly receiving a check from a game company, one that readers, if looking for conflict of interest with a specific writer, could easily find.

Do you think Bill Trotter was wrong for writing a review of a game he was writing a hintbook for?

Do you think someone that writes game manuals for a game company should be reviewing their games?

Do you think paid employees of a game company should be writing reviews?

These are all appearances of conflict, not necessarily instances of actual conflict. But if you personally are receiving money to promote, say, Tropico on your own personal website, money that goes directly into your pocket, that is a problem. And what happens when it's not just Tropico, when it's 5-6 games/companies?

What other writers out there are directly receiving compensation of any kind from game publishers?

(By the way, this really only affects reviews. If I greenlight a preview article on Tropico from you, I choose to run it or not. If it's full of wonderful praise for the game that could be construed as being tied to your own site's promotion, it's my own fault that I ran it, or didn't edit out some of that praise.)

>>So just read our stuff. Make that your litmus test.

Hah, that's funny. Back in the days I'd say the same thing and you'd continue to beat up magazines and websites on their various unethical ways... sucks to be called out on it, doesn't it?

My god... I leave for twelve hours and you all get out of hand. sheesh. heh

"Back in the days I'd say the same thing and you'd continue to beat up magazines and websites on their various unethical ways... sucks to be
called out on it, doesn't it?"

You're confusing me with Critical Bill. I argued in favor of more industry news and reviews and fewer previews. Bill was the one who liked to accuse publications of graft. I never did. I never have.

As to Trotter, yeah, he was wrong to at least not disclose that he wrote the hint guide. As a reader I just want to know the relationship. I don't mind him writing the review, but tell me what else he's done.

"What other writers out there are directly receiving compensation of any kind from game publishers?"

Every writer who accepts an airline ticket, hotel fare, and food from the publisher?

How many writers indirectly are compensated by ad revenue? All of them?

It comes down to the content. If it's legit, does it really matter who's negotioating with advertisers? Readers aren't stupid. When they see a magazine stuffed full of ads, they understand that there's a possibility that's it's an organ for the publishers. They'll scrutinize the content and if it doesn't tie in to their sensibilities, they'll leave.

"Do you think someone that writes game manuals for a game company should be reviewing their games?"

Not the specific game, but other games are ok as long as the previous relationship is disclosed.

"Do you think paid employees of a game company should be writing reviews?"

What's to stop them? Plenty of them already post comments about games they like or don't.

Do I think they should review for prominent publications? I don't mind as long as they don't review their own company's games. I'd love to read Fergus Urquart's thoughts on other games, though. I'm not stupid. Disclose his relationship and I'll use that to filter his comments. If he doesn't like Rune, I'd be interested to know why.

>>Every writer who accepts an airline ticket, hotel fare, and food from the publisher?

Indirect, and no money is exchanging hands. Yeah, perhaps it's arbitrary, but it's also handled through the publication. The publication is the filter to, in theory, keep any article from being a paid ad. Without that filter, the perception is considerably different (at least to me) if the people writing the edit are also directly (not indirectly) receiving actual checks from those people.

And I have to worry about how things are perceived, especially those that are within my control. I can't somehow change who advertises, or ask the bosses to sell off assets (I can, however, make sure they remain as separate as possible). But I can say, "Hmm, I don't think we can use Person X because people might think they have a conflict. So let's use person Y."

>>How many writers indirectly are compensated by ad revenue? All of them?

This is stupid, and not the same thing. How a magazine derives its revenue doesn't affect individual writers one bit unless the editorial staff does it by altering their articles or telling them to write in a certain way.

Nor does negotiating ad sales. But we're talking about appearances, not literal influence.

>>If it's legit, does it really matter who's negotioating with advertisers?

How does one define a "legit" review? One you agree with?

Since it's an opinion, you'd prefer that opinion to be as free of perception of bias as is possible. What's the first thing people think when they disagree with a game review? Let's see, it usually goes from "they didn't play the game enough," to "they're bought by the advertisers."

I just think it's funny you're arguing that it's okay to do this; if you weren't involved in this site, I think you'd prefer that writers for magazines were free of direct ties to advertisers.

Personally, I'd obviously like to see that reviewers are completely unbiased, but that's often tough to judge. I don't feel that people at large, respectable magazines or websites have any reason to be biased, whereas those at smaller sites and 'zines rely on a couple developers/publishers to feed them content. I'd also have to agree with Mark, in that if a game developer were to review games, it would be fine, so long as he didn't review his own titles. If he starts saying stuff like "oh, this game is so much worse than this game I made last year," his integrity is obviously going to suffer. However, if he provides a fair, unbiased view, why wouldn't his opinion be as acceptable as that of some professional writer?

>>Every writer who accepts an airline ticket, hotel fare, and food from the publisher?

I should point out that holding a writer responsible for accepting travel in the name of a publication is wrong, as most of the plane tickets and hotels are done for specific stories. If you have a problem its with the publication, not the writer.

If a writer were being flown around the country by a game company without an assignment, that would be questionable behavior (and doesn't happen).

>>However, if he provides a fair, unbiased view, why wouldn't his opinion be as acceptable as that of some professional writer?

As long as it's disclosed there isn't really a problem, but if he does criticize a product--regardless of the merits of said criticisms--and his company does have a competing one, it would be hard to convince people (both the makers of the game being reviewed and readers) that it was an unbiased view.

"As long as it's disclosed there isn't really a problem, but if he does criticize a product--regardless of the merits of said criticisms--and his company does have a competing one, it would be hard to convince people (both the makers of the game being reviewed and readers) that it was an unbiased view. "

Point number 301 that 3Drealms doesn't gets.

Rob Merritt -- www.moonbasetycho.com

"I just think it's funny you're arguing that it's okay to do this; if you weren't involved in this site, I think you'd prefer that writers for magazines were free of direct ties to advertisers."

It's not something that I enjoy doing. It's just something that has to get done. And really, I've scarcely done it. It's taken up literally just a few minutes of my time so far -- the time it takes to write a few emails. I haven't even talked to anyone on the phone.

I do find the business side of game journalism and the game industry interesting. Actually selling something isn't all that fascinating though.

This old thread? Did someone dig this up from Usenet and post it here or something?

I've worked for print mags and websites. In my experience, the print mags I've worked for were way more involved in advertising. At the first magazine that employed me, a friend of mine was fired for giving a bad review to a game by a heavy advertiser. At the first website, an ad salesperson was fired for talking to me about a bad review. That's a big difference.

I'm not saying it's like that across the board. It's impossible to compare the two. Online and print mags are very different entities. Policies differ from mag to mag and site to site. But both mediums the potential to be compromised, and the only real barrier is the fiber of the editors. My old magazine had very stringent regulations that would prohibit writers from writing certain articles, but that was mostly just to deter situations which I would hope writers try to avoid on their own.

I don't think it's right for a writer to preview a game and then review it. I don't think it's right for a writer to write a strategy guide and then review that game. I'm in the minority of editors on the former, the majority on the latter. Am I more upstanding than my former colleagues? No. More uptight? Quite possibly.

And, Steve, I would hope you'd be over your fear of websites by now. I quote: "You know what disturbs me about websites? Editorial people fretting over ads, designing more profitable ads..." Are you really going to say this disturbs you about "websites" in response to one person's post?

More from you: "Any editorial person on a website can quote you ad rates, CPM rates, they all know click-thrus, impressions." Uh, I worked at GameSpot for four years, even working as exec editor for a year. And I couldn't tell you what our rates were. I know what CPM means, but that's it from your list. So, again, I think the gross generalities are hampering your argument.

-Ron Dulin

"Personally, I'd obviously like to see that reviewers are completely unbiased, but that's often tough to
judge."

No such thing exists. Everybody begins reading or writing with an opinion.

Ron! Long time no argue. What's up, man? We should argue about ratings systems or something.

>>And, Steve, I would hope you'd be over your fear of websites by now.

I don't fear websites any more than I fear other magazines.

>>I quote: "You know what disturbs me about websites? Editorial people fretting over ads, designing more profitable ads..." Are you really going to say this disturbs you about "websites" in response to one person's post?

If it were magazine editors figuring out new and exciting fold out ads, or ways to sell sponsorships on each editorial page, that would be equally disturbing. (And I'm guessing that it would be scrutinized and criticized a lot more than if a website did the same.)

If you just remove "websites", the thing that disturbs me is editorial, in general, getting more and more cozy with advertising and promotion. It's something you see in television, magazines and websites.

I think it's weird that readers are actually asking for and coming up with ideas for more effective ads to help keep their websites free. We're actually asking for MORE advertising. Everyone's suddenly falling all over themselves to adopt CNet's new Flash ad, never stopping to think that it's pretty fucking annoying to readers to have this giant animated advertisement in the middle of a page you're trying to focus on. (I clicked on that article because I wanted to focuson on and read an article, not have something singing and dancing alongside it... hell, an interstitial would be less annoying.) And because it's successful, others will/are adopting it as a new standard.

And if you believe people in message boards, that's perfectly fine; when they hear their favorite websites are struggling, they're suddenly offering their own advice on how ads could be more effective, or more intrusive so the sites will stay alive.

I'm sympathetic. I hate seeing good sites shut down, I hate seeing people out of work, and for all I know I could be out of a job tomorrow. But I hate the level of advertising we're all accepting as inevitable. People should be protesting advertising that's obnoxious and intrusive by not buying certain magazines or watching certain TV shows or visiting certain websites. Blah blah blah.

>>So, again, I think the gross generalities are hampering your argument.

Ah, okay. Strike the "any" and replace it with "too many" or "some." There you go.

"I think it's weird that readers are actually asking for and coming up with ideas for more effective ads to help keep their websites free. We're actually asking for MORE advertising. Everyone's suddenly falling all over themselves to adopt CNet's new Flash ad, never stopping to think that it's pretty fucking annoying to readers to have this giant animated advertisement in the middle of a page you're trying to focus on. (I clicked on that article because I wanted to focuson on and read an article, not have something singing and dancing alongside it... hell, an interstitial would be less annoying.) And because it's successful, others will/are adopting it as a new standard."

Magazine ads are obtrusive, too. The difference is speed: I can flip through a couple of pages of ads in the middle of a magazine story much more quickly than I can click through a popup or an ad page. Though I must add that no matter how intrusive a website gets, it will never match Vanity Fair, GQ, or any women's magazine for annoying masses of advertisements.

>>Though I must add that no matter how intrusive a website gets, it will never match Vanity Fair, GQ, or any women's magazine for annoying masses of advertisements.

Fashion publications have tons of ads because that's one of their benefits to readers. The readers WANT many of the ads.

They are usually close to 30/70 editorial/ads, and if you go below 25% I believe you're considered a catalog instead of a magazine (which as I understand it changes your postal rates considerably).

You can argue that game magazines aren't that different in that sense, as it's another way of knowing what games are coming out soon. Too bad game ads pretty much such, in a creative sense.

I'm going to be bad and go totally off-topic here for a second.

Mark, our mail server is hosed on this end, I can't send outgoing. That thing you asked me about, it might take me up to a week to find out. I have to ask our field engineers and sales guys because I don't know anyone there personally.

Okay, back to y'alls' regularly scheduled discussion.

"I think it's weird that readers are actually asking for and coming up with ideas for more effective ads to help keep their websites free. We're actually asking for MORE advertising."

Really? Why don't you ask your magazine readers if they'd like to have an option with a magazine that's got more ads but is free as a result and see how they feel about it?

Or, a more apt analogy would be to ask readers if they'd prefer more ads or no magazine, because that's the situation that's facing websites.

As to the new CNET ads, if they only wouldn't automatically animate, they wouldn't be so bad. I don't mind having an ad so large that it forces me to look at it for a moment, but when it animates and I can't read because of it, that's really annoying. I think they're making a mistake with the animation. Make it optional. Then the ad's pretty nifty, because I can view it without having to leave the page.

"You can argue that game magazines aren't that different in that sense, as it's another way of knowing what games are coming out soon. Too bad game ads pretty much such, in a creative sense."

You're spot on with this. Despite free websites, I still subscribe to gaming magazines. A large part of the reason for that is to see all the purty pictures (both editorial and advertising).

My "fear of websites" comment was (supposed to be) a joke. I guess my refusal to use smileys makes me look like a jackass yet again.

I didn't mean to attack you specifically, Steve, it's just that every consumer oriented magazine wrestles with this stuff and it's always difficult. I get frustrated when I see people pointing fingers and criticizing others when every computer gaming magazine/site could be construed as biased simply because they are so integrated into the industry they cover. It's easy to say websites are less biased because they have credit card ads, but the truth is that only the ones that have been swallowed by larger publishers benefit from the large sales forces that sell the whole network, not just the game site.

Ads are intrusive. There have been ridiculous magazine ads, and equally ridiculous online ads. A year or so ago, GameSpot introduced two types of ads that drove me crazy. A sort of drop-down thingy and ads that came up before a story loaded. Luckily, the editors had a good deal of clout and we nixed those.

It's important for editors to consider these things because the appearance of impropriety can lead to unwarranted distrust on the part of the reader. But it's all moral grandstanding to discuss our church and state status with the ad sales people when we're getting drunk with the PR folks and the developers of the games we're writing about.

As I said before, it all comes down to the ethics of the editor and the writer. If the writer feels there's even a chance he or she is biased when writing about something, he or she shouldn't take the assignment. If the writer is unable to make that distinction, then it's the editor's job. All the rest is just appearances.

I'm great Steve! Thanks for asking. How are you? Weighted-average rating systems rock!

-Ron

"Weighted-average rating systems rock!"

Heh heh -- I'm with Bauman on this one. I don't mind having different categories, but I like the writer getting to peg the final score.

I also don't like 10 or 100 point rating sytems. In these systems a 7 or 70 seems to be an average score. You can't give a game a 50% and claim it's an average game. That's a failing grade in the minds of most people.

"Heh heh -- I'm with Bauman on this one. I don't mind having different categories, but I like the writer getting to peg the final score."

I don't like scores, period. The name of the game is matching the reviewer's preferences with your own, and having a "score" doesn't help me do that in the slightest.

Of course, I'm sure the concept of a game magazine without review scores would be cause for rioting in the streets, cats living with dogs, etcetera, etcetera.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

>>I guess my refusal to use smileys makes me look like a jackass yet again.

Ron, there is almost nothing you can do to keep from looking like a jackass.

>>we're getting drunk with the PR folks and the developers of the games we're writing about.

Some of us are in Vermont making this less of an issue... and some of us also don't drink, so therefore I am more moral and ethical. So there.

But anyhoo, no one's really pointing fingers at anyone in particular, just speaking in generalities. I wish more people were concerned about ethics and perception of conflicts. Lord knows business people aren't. Reader feelings and perceptions are always left out of the equation when making changes, largely because they do not protest particularly well.

This is particularly true with online game sites, I'm afraid. How many people say, "God, I hate SITE X", but as soon as that site has some information on a game they're particularly interested in they run over and read it? That's not sending much of a message to the publication. The best message is to stop visiting altogether, and assuming enough people are concerned about shoddy quality (or whatever the problem is), the traffic will dip and either the site will change or go away. But most people can't help it because it's... too easy to visit a site.

It's easy to stop reading a magazine because of the financial commitment. Over the years we've done some really stupid things and lost readers, and you hear more of them say things like, "I stopped reading when they did X, Y or Z, and I've not read it since."

I think people say they don't visit certain websites, but I suspect that when VE says, "Whoah, Site X just pumped up a preview with all new info... man this ROCKS" they pop over for a look...

>>Of course, I'm sure the concept of a game magazine without review scores would be cause for rioting in the streets, cats living with dogs, etcetera, etcetera.

A tiny number would prefer no rating, but the vast majority love them. It gives them a simple shorthand way to discuss games. I can say, "Deus Ex really isn't a 5-star game, it's more of a 3.5 star game" and you already have an idea what I'm talking about.

I like ratings; I don't like breaking them down into categories because it reinforces the notion that games can be judged by its parts as opposed to its whole.

But I also like the challenge of writing really short reviews. I'm sure the guys here think they're sorta fun too (the 60-second review).

---

Quote:

But I also like the challenge of writing really short reviews. I'm sure the guys here think they're sorta fun too (the 60-second review).

---

---

Quote:

Weighted-average rating systems rock!

---

(I think Ron was joking.)

Sorry about the weighted average comment. Steve and I have argued about this for years, and I was trying - and once again, failing - to make a joke.

And, also:

"Only one major site or magazine uses a weighted average for their final score and that system proves how bad they are"

Ouch.

I think you need to give it to smileys, Ron. I still don't like that system and never will. :)

That says nothing about the text that accompanies it though which is often just fine.

--Dave

>>I don't like scores, period. The name of the game is matching the reviewer's preferences with your own, and having a "score" doesn't help me do that in the slightest.

I think Wumpus hits it square on the nose with that comment. I definitely pay more attention to reviewers who have gaming preferences similar to my own. Sorry Tom. ;)

Plus, I think it make no sense to take something so subjective and apply a mathematically weighted average to it.

As for the ads, I guess I don't mind them as long as they don't interfere with the content I'm trying to get to. I mean, I'm not going to the website for the ads, unless you count previews.

Oh, so that reminds me, is there such thing as a mediocre preview, or do those just not get run? That isn't to say that a game will be bad, but I've played preview copies that just didn't seem to offer anything worth writing about.

- Alan

>>Sorry about the weighted average comment. Steve and I have argued about this for years, and I was trying - and once again, failing - to make a joke.

That legendary Dulin sense of humor doesn't translate particularly well to forum posts.

And I should point out, for those standing on the sidelines, that despite our constant disagreements Mr. Ron Dulin is one of the editors in this industry that I genuinely like and respect.

Though Ron, I tried to read some William Gaddis per your suggestions and failed miserably. I'm not worthy.

"Mr. Ron Dulin is one of the editors in this industry that I genuinely like and respect."

Right back at you, buddy!

And I would call them consistent disagreements, not constant.

Despite my disparaging comments above, I think discussions like this are absolutely vital. When I worked for LFP - WAY back in the 90s - my introduction to journalistic ethics was watching scores changed on reviews and ghost writing ALL of my editor's work. It was my first job, and though it seemed strange, I thought that must be "how it worked."

So, I always like discussions about ethics because it means that people are still thinking about them. When I hear about practices at many of the game mags/sites (putting the mag's name on prefab quotes, the like), I'm flabbergasted.

But I'm not an editor anymore, so it's all just theory. I write what I'm assigned. But I still like to think about it.

>Only one major site or magazine uses a weighted average for their final score and that system proves how bad they are.

Bah. There's nothing inherently worse about a weighted average system - any system can work well, or poorly -- it all depends upon the diligence of its users.

People who criticize a weighted average system are usually just confirming that they believe a game's "rating" should be determined solely based upon the quality of that game's "gameplay" (which is a reasonable view, just not one I agree with).

Stefan

>>Bah. There's nothing inherently worse about a weighted average system - any system can work well, or poorly -- it all depends upon the diligence of its users.

Bah! right back at you. The question is do you create your individual ratings and let the chips fly with the final rating or do you tweak the individual ones to generate a final rating that best matches your impression of the game and the accompanying text?

While it's entirely possibly everything matches perfectly (the text, the individual and final ratings), you risk misleading your readers if the rating doesn't match the text as the final rating is the one that people are likely to consult or remember.

But if you tweak the ratings you're also misleading your readers with each individual rating not properly reflecting your overall opinion.

I dunno, it's hard enough to match a rating to the text without having to consult a formula.

And a weighted system really blands out ratings, as they all tend to fall into a certain range (usually 6.5-8), and you rarely see ratings on the extremes, either high or low.

Ugh, am I really talking about this... aaaarrrrghh, I said I wouldn't... I blame Ron Dulin.

>>And I would call them consistent disagreements, not constant.

I'm just waiting, to quote Nash Kato, for you to "come around to my way of thinking."

>>Despite my disparaging comments above, I think discussions like this are absolutely vital.

I think my disappointment is that fewer and fewer people seem to consider these types of issues. I dunno, maybe I'm just not paying attention.

>>When I hear about practices at many of the game mags/sites (putting the mag's name on prefab quotes, the like), I'm flabbergasted.

Ugh, quotes. I get asked all the time to make up quotes for ads and boxes (since our previews are typically quote free... which is by design), and I politely decline. I wish more of our reviews were quote-worthy; you should passionately love or hate a game in your review, and be willing to stick your neck out on the line and make bold pronouncements, even if you risk pissing people off. Obviously you can get sorta stupid calling everything "game of the year", but c'mon... reading some reviews, you wonder if the person REALLY likes the game... and too many people (myself included) seem to want to find the good in the awful.

>And a weighted system really blands out ratings, as they all tend to fall into a certain range (usually 6.5-8),and you rarely see ratings on the extremes, either high or low.

Most games do get an "average" rating, uh, which I guess is why it's called "average", whether that's 3 out of 5 or 6-7 out of 10, under any system. To the extent a weighted system reinforces that phenomenon (which certainly happens anyway at most sites/mags, even though they don't use a weighted system), it's just recognition that most games aren't entirely bad, or good. If you'd prefer that a game's overall rating ignore those aspects, that's cool (but hopefully the review at least notes them in text), but I prefer a system that recognizes them in its rating.

> I wish more of our reviews were quote-worthy; you should passionately love or hate a game in your review, and be willing to stick your neck out on the line and make bold pronouncements, even if you risk pissing people off.

I strongly disagree. I greatly dislike (what I perceive to be) the growing trend to either champion a title's merits or to ceaselessly ridicule the game -- that's not "passion" for gaming, it's fanboy writing (it "sucks/rules!"). Most games aren't "crap" or "brilliant", and making promouncements to that effect isn't bold, it's just inaccurate.

I think both CGW and PC Gamer more consistently (unfortunately) produce ridiculously glowing previews, often infested with meaningless, childish prose ("drooling", "anxious, sweaty palms", etc.).

What I wish we were better at doing is conveying, in a lucid manner, how impressive or unique a game's good features are, and how bad its flaws are. And ensuring that reviews effectively leave readers with an accurate impression of the reviewer's overall views of the game. Perspective.

"What I wish we were better at doing is conveying, in a lucid manner, how impressive or unique a game's good features are, and how bad its flaws are. And ensuring that reviews effectively leave readers with an accurate impression of the reviewer's overall views of the game. Perspective. "

Isn't this what I've been saying all along? Matching your preferences with the reviewer's preferences? Getting an inventory of what worked in the game and what didn't?

"Most games aren't "crap" or "brilliant", and making promouncements to that effect isn't bold, it's just inaccurate."

I like to call this the Old Man Murray effect. Seperate your desire to spank developers (or encourage them) from your reviews whenever possible.

On the other hand, I think a little enthusiasm can be warranted at times. This is supposed to be fun.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

p.s. I too loved Star Blazers.

"I greatly dislike (what I perceive to be) the growing trend to either champion a title's merits or to ceaselessly ridicule the game -- that's not "passion" for gaming, it's fanboy writing (it "sucks/rules!"). Most games aren't "crap" or "brilliant", and making promouncements to that effect isn't bold, it's just inaccurate."

Preach, Brother! My experience with writing reviews is from academic book reviews in college. A good review requires the writer to analyze the book, compare and contrast it to others on the subject (or related subjects), and give it a place in the body of knowledge. That place might be the foundation or the trashcan, but simply stating a conclusion without analysis was a ticket to a poor grade. Rarely was a book a clear-cut winner or loser in all respects, so you had to draw that out as well.

This kind of writing is what drew me to the pre-ZD CGW (though I think it has improved again lately). Unfortunately, it is becoming all too common for game reviews to be the yes/no sucks/rules dreck that tells me nothing but the writer's conclusion. If you say a FPS is better than Half-life, tell me exactly why. If you can't analyze the game or your own thoughts enough to figure out exactly why, turn over your pen to someone who can.

"Most games do get an "average" rating, uh, which I guess is why it's called "average", whether that's 3 out of 5 or 6-7 out of 10, under any system."

The problem with the 10 point or 100 point systems is that an average game tends to be a 7 or 70, so the real ratings are jammed into the upper half of the scale. Instead of a subpar game getting a 4/10, it gets a 6/10.

This problem is worsened with a weighted system that makes it hard for anthing to get much higher than a 9. Then you have most of the usable review scale jammed into scores 6-9.

>>Most games do get an "average" rating, uh, which I guess is why it's called "average", whether that's 3 out of 5 or 6-7 out of 10, under any system.

If the average on a 100 point system (which a 10 point system with a percentage is) is 60-70 as opposed to the literal 50% mark then you're not using a 10 point system, you're basically using a 30-100 rating scale.

Is maximum PC going to fold? That sucks cause that's a good magazine! I was going to subscribe for a year, should I? Or should I just wait and see what happens?

>>I strongly disagree. I greatly dislike (what I perceive to be) the growing trend to either champion a title's merits or to ceaselessly ridicule the game -- that's not "passion" for gaming, it's fanboy writing (it "sucks/rules!").

That's not what I was getting at. When I read a Gamespot review, and understand this is just a philosophical issue, not a criticism, I have a difficult time telling if a writer likes the game or not. All of the reviews are written in a sort of monotone. "The graphics are good. The gameplay is good." It comes across as wishy-washy to me.

Showing passion means backing it up. You don't write every sentence like, "It's cool!" or "It sucks!" You spend the majority of your review explaining in great detail what exactly is cool or what sucks about the game, but don't feel you need to downplay your praise or criticisms. Use language that conveys the strength of your opinions; I think writers lack confidence to stand up and say, "This is SERIOUSLY good" because they're afraid of people accusing them of kissing ass or being paid off.

>>Most games aren't "crap" or "brilliant", and making promouncements to that effect isn't bold, it's just inaccurate.

How is saying Crivilization II or Baldur's Gate II is "brilliant" ever innaccurate? It may not match YOUR opinion, but it's my review.

>>I think both CGW and PC Gamer more consistently (unfortunately) produce ridiculously glowing previews, often infested with meaningless, childish prose ("drooling", "anxious, sweaty palms", etc.).

Well, I wouldn't disagree with you there. In the past I've produced plenty of stupid previews like that and been burned, so we make a conscious effort not to use that sort of language in previews, and remove tone down writers that get a wee-bit rambunctious. And we're almost never quoted on boxes.

>>And ensuring that reviews effectively leave readers with an accurate impression of the reviewer's overall views of the game. Perspective.

I'm just talking about the language used to convey that impression.

As an example, here's the end of my RollerCoaster Tycoon review: "RollerCoaster Tycoon is the most purely entertaining strategy game in ages, one that's virtually guaranteed to put a smile on the face of even the most jaded gamer. It's a wildly exuberant game that reminds us that fun is an honorable goal for any entertainment..."

Here is Gamespot's: "RollerCoaster Tycoon is another fun management simulation from the mind of Chris Sawyer. One can only hope he continues to make games in the future - and with less time between them."

You can call me a fanboy all you want for praising this game in this manner, but I'd say that while the overall opinions are similar (i.e. both reviews are incredibly positive about a pretty wonderful game), I'm guessing readers come away from the two reviews with a slightly different idea of how much the reviewer actually liked the game.

>>Preach, Brother! My experience with writing reviews is from academic book reviews in college.
But these are not academic essays, they're entertainment reviews in entertainment publications. And they need to be... entertaining.

You do all of the things you mention (analyze, compare, etc.), but you present it in an entertaining manner, which involves using words that are possibly more loaded and convey more meaning. I'm not talking about going to tabloid levels as people seem to feel here ("It's cool!" "It sucks!"), but tell us how you really feel. Too often I feel like writers are worried about how their review will be perceived, about pissing off their readers.

It takes absolutely no great skill to find every niggling problem in a game. They're all flawed. A reviewer's skill comes from determining, and then conveying to the reader, how much of an impact these things have on the overall experience. If the good outweighs the bad (or vice versa) why dwell on the good/bad? Should half of my RollerCoaster Tycoon review talk about its lack of sandbox mode or no speed controls? Doesn't that miss the point, that the absolute joy the game generates through its terrific gameplay, superb interface fantastic graphics (though not high-color or polygonal or 3D accelerated... should those criticisms be leveled at the game?) and sound (no 3D audio!) absoltutely overwhelms whatever minor issues you may have with the game...

The reviewer should convey that joy, not create an essay that covers in great detail every positive with a negative. Aside from word count problems, readers will come away from such a review with the notion that the game, regardless of how good or bad it really is, is ultimately... mediocre.

I leave you with a quote:

"Writing about movies, you don't have to treat them all respectfully. Your job is to sort out the rare great from the adequate and the frequent appalling. In the process you can pep up what you're doing by letting go with a little savagery. You can treat bum work as a hanging offense. You can even crack a joke about it now and then. Even mediocre pop art is a lot more fun than failed high art, and it's more fun to write about." -Pauline Kael

---

Quote:

I like to call this the Old Man Murray effect. Seperate your desire to spank developers (or encourage them) from your reviews whenever possible.

---

---

Quote:

I greatly dislike (what I perceive to be) the growing trend to either champion a title's merits or to ceaselessly ridicule the game -- that's not "passion" for gaming, it's fanboy writing (it "sucks/rules!"). Most games aren't "crap" or "brilliant", and making promouncements to that effect isn't bold, it's just inaccurate.

---

"You're not reviewing a developer, you're reviewing a game. All the animosity toward a bad game should be directed at the game, not the developers of it."

This also applies for good games. I think people give some developers too much slack. id and Blizzard come to mind. PCG's review of Diablo 2 comes to mind. That entire review thoroughly disgusted to me. I think Diablo 2 is a very good game, but I think PCG compromised themselves by playing it at Blizzard's offices on a Blizzard supplied computer. Add in the fact they couldn't test out Battlenet (arguably one of the game's main selling points) and I think they just didn't give the game a proper review. For a game that got a 94% and Vederman called "the best game ever" it sure didn't make much of a showing in their end of year awards.

I respected the hell out of CGM for holding their review till they could test out the multiplayer. Their review may have been been published later, but it produced a much more informative review.

---

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
I like to call this the Old Man Murray effect. Seperate your desire to spank developers (or encourage them) from your reviews whenever possible.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A review like this shouldn't ever make it in the magazine. You're not reviewing a developer, you're reviewing a game. All the animosity toward a bad game should be directed at the game, not the developers of it.

---

"I think writers lack confidence to stand up and say, 'This is SERIOUSLY good' because they're afraid of people accusing them of kissing ass or being paid off."

You hit that nail right on the head. You need look no further than OMM to see this is absolutely true. They simply don't write positive reviews for that very reason. And it's a cop-out.

I've mentioned this before, but the only two positive reviews to appear on OMM are Half-Life and NOLF, and both are incredibly brief. Compare to the obsessively researched four page reamings that everything else gets, and you'll start to see the pattern.

Somehow, being overwhelmingly negative is entertaining criticism, whereas being overwhelmingly positive is ass-kissing fanboy behavior to be avoided at all costs. Why is that? It's like those kids in high school who are too cool to participate in anything, because when everything sucks, that imparts to them a level of sophistication they don't have.

Erik recently made some incidentally positive comments about Giants, which we all know is a good, but flawed game. And true to form, the review never appeared. I have lost a little respect for OMM because they lack the courage to really come out and support a game that isn't all but invunerable to critics-- yet they're more than happy to pile on bad games and absolutely rip them a new one.

It's like they've built themselves a little gleaming fortress of hatred from which they sally forth every few years to anoint the next great game title.

I mean, it's amusing, and they're undeniably masters of that particular form. And don't get me wrong, many of these titles deserve everything they get. But as a useful reviewing style, it ain't much.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

As an example, here's the end of my RollerCoaster Tycoon review: "RollerCoaster Tycoon is the most purely entertaining strategy game in ages, one that's virtually guaranteed to put a smile on the face of even the most jaded gamer. It's a wildly exuberant game that reminds us that fun is an honorable goal for any entertainment..."

I think both you and Tom Chick did an outstanding, even a brilliant job on your respective RCT reviews. I remembered both long after I had read them for the very reasons you outline-- they made me realize just how much fun gaming can be at times.

Reading those review I can vicariously experience a little part of the fun the author was having.

And that, in itself, is entertaining, even if the game isn't.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"You do all of the things you mention (analyze, compare, etc.), but you present it in an entertaining manner, which involves using words that are possibly more loaded and convey more meaning. I'm not talking about going to tabloid levels as people seem to feel here ("It's cool!" "It sucks!"), but tell us how you really feel. Too often I feel like writers are worried about how their review will be perceived, about pissing off their readers. "

True, but I think you seriously underestimate how difficult it is to write an entertaining review. That's like the freakin' holy grail.

There are probably less than a dozen game reviewers working today that consistently write reviews that are fun to read, even if I have absolutely no interest in the game. Don't worry, if you're reading this, you're probably one of them.

That's why I think you see so many game reviewers fall into the formulaic trap of "here's what I thought about the graphics", "here's what I thought about the gameplay", etc etc. It's not due to any lack of desire to write a good review on the part of the reviewer, It's simply because good writing is difficult. Really difficult. It's easier to just treat it as technical writing and just list everything than it is to meld everything into one coherent narrative.

And unfortunately I have absolutely no idea how to teach someone to do that, or even to teach myself how to do it. I guess all you can do is read the writers you respect and try to emulate them, but it's an art, not a science.

GameSpot's ONI review:
http://www.zdnet.com/gamespot/stories/reviews/0,10867,2675313-2,00.html
"In the end, Oni is a fairly plain third-person action game that contains a more robust combat system than those found in most similar games. Its graphics, particularly the environments' graphics, aren't noteworthy, and its story isn't fully developed. Yet, despite these shortcomings, along with the game's lack of a convenient save system and the absence of a multiplayer option, Oni will still appeal to players who like the material that inspired the game. If nothing else, these players would be hard pressed to find any other recent PC game that's influenced by Japanese science fiction."

cdmag's ONI review
http://www.cdmag.com/articles/031/133/oni-01.html
"As it swings between being the best combat PC fighting game in existence and a frustratingly limited one, Oni feels somewhat like a sketch for a much bigger, and better, game. It feels a little like the contractual obligation game�the one Bungie had to finish before moving on to bigger and better things like Halo. Somehow all of the missing pieces can't completely dilute the impact of what is a terrific, if somewhat slight, combat experience. It's so close to being a masterpiece that you'll inevitably be disappointed, but when you step back and look at the whole instead of focusing on the parts, the one thing that stands out more than save limitations or the lack of configuration is the spectacular action. And that's ultimately what matters most."

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"But these are not academic essays, they're entertainment reviews in entertainment publications. And they need to be... entertaining."

Entertaining and academic are not mutually exclusive. The best instructors are the entertaining ones, who can breath life into otherwise dry and dull material.

"You do all of the things you mention (analyze, compare, etc.), but you present it in an entertaining manner, which involves using words that are possibly more loaded and convey more meaning."

I think we are on the same page. I'm asking for entertainment with some depth to it.

"Yet in another thread, we have a group of posters praising Lester Bangs and calling him a genius for writing rock reviews that consistently broke this rule."

As I stated previously, that's because Bangs was a genius. His writing consistently transcended whatever it was he was ostensibly writing about and, at its best, was usually concerned with much larger issues. I've yet to see anyone do that with a game review. Or a film review, for that matter.

Though not for a lack of trying, as Daily Radar's Majora's Mask (as aped by OMM) illustrated. I'm not singling this review out. I'm just saying that what Bangs did consistently and successfully is what most writers try to achieve just once in a great while.

---

Quote:

You hit that nail right on the head. You need look no further than OMM to see this is absolutely true. They simply don't write positive reviews for that very reason. And it's a cop-out.

---

---

Quote:

It's like they've built themselves a little gleaming fortress of hatred from which they sally forth every few years to anoint the next great game title.

---

"Next week, I'm going to sally forth from my gleaming fortess of hatred...."

Heh -- how exactly do you get it to gleam like hat? Pinesol? Mr. Clean? Or is it just from the tongues of OMM groupies laving praise?

Why don't you combine earnest game reviews and porn? You should have an OMM forum where you can describe going out to buy the latest game and letting it drop that you're Chet or Erik and then the comely, star-eyed clerk will hustle you into the storeroom for steamy sex on piles of unsold Daikatana boxes. I would like to read about that.

Ron: "When I worked for LFP - WAY back in the 90s - my introduction to journalistic ethics was watching scores changed on reviews and ghost writing ALL of my editor's work. "

Yep, I remember those Computer Player days. It was quite common for my review scores to get bumped, and I don't mean from a 4.0 to a 4.2. Sometimes I'd see a 6 bumped two points to an 8, or vice versa. The only game I ever gave a 10 to, Civilization II, got dropped to an 8. Sometimes, when the game was a really obscure title, it didn't bother me much, but sometimes the change would make me look like an idiot and once it's in print, there's not much you can do.

Wumpus asked about mediocre previews. I tried once, and the editors totally rejected it. When I previewed Codename Eagle, I came away feeling very bland about it. I voiced my concerns and the editors made me rework it because 'it wasn't positive enough.'

Also, while I appreciate the artsy-fartsy writing style, what a lot of readers don't understand is that the word counts might be very restrictive and make it difficult to do such flowery exposition. Some are better at consistently writing in great style. I think we'd agree Tom Chick is one of them. Every once in a while, I can do it, but especially when inspiration is low, or word counts are tight, or deadlines near, I rely on the no-nonsense approach to just get the point across.

I see this fluctuation in a lot of the articles I read. Sometimes a writer has the time and room (and mood) to be a little more elegant, and other times it's enough to just get to business. There's nothing wrong with either approach, each can still have humor and what have you. Every writer is different and every article should be too. One of the problems I have in the gaming industry is that sometimes the same repertiore of about six or seven writers are doing all the articles, and then all the publications sound the same. I like each publication to have different voices.

"I like to call this the Old Man Murray effect. Seperate your desire to spank developers (or encourage them) from your reviews whenever possible."

The only Old Man Murray Effect I know about (although I'm not a physicist so who knows) is the one where I laugh my ass off. It may be that you mean that reviewers try to emulate the OMM style, but I don't go to Old Man Murray to inform my game purchasing decisions. I go there to read really funny stuff. I see Erik beat me to it, but I was going to say that I'm pretty sure they don't even play a lot of those games in the Short Reviews section.

I also think Erik is being disingenuous about the actual critical content in his long reviews, because it's clear he has some pretty strong opinions about game design. But in the end, I read OMM for the same reason I read JeffK - it makes me laugh until I can't breathe. I think that's a pretty good "effect."

"I rely on the no-nonsense approach to just get the point across."

Most reviews should work this way. Very few writers can write about games in an interesting enough way to warrant making the writing the centerpiece. 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.

"...what a lot of readers don't understand is that the word counts might be very restrictive and make it difficult to do such flowery exposition."

What really annoys me is when review space is taken up with stupid sidebars like "how great Kari Wurher and her breasts are in Red Alert 2" or something to that effect. Frequently sidebars add nothing and only take away space from the actual review.

>>Very few writers can write about games in an interesting enough way to warrant making the writing the centerpiece.

True, and when I'm talking about making reviews more interesting and passionate a lot of it is dependent on finding good writers who can convey those things. There are great writers out there, and great gamers, and seemingly very little crossover.

>>Games are throwaway consumer products and when people want a review, they just want information about the game.

Ooh, that's a pretty broad generalization. No one has actually tried to provide more literate reviews, so it's impossible to say a segment of gamers wouldn't PREFER that approach.

>>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.

See, but you can get to the point in any number of different ways. If you assume games are just "throwaway" consumer products (which if that's true I'd wonder why they occupy so much of your time), why do you even need reviews? If you just want information, look at the box.

Would 100 word blurbs be enough? Or would you prefer that Adrenaline Vault formulaic style: here's the graphics, here's the sound, blah blah blah. That's "just information" about the game, and it probably wouldn't put you to sleep.

I dunno. I'd rather writers be creative but never lose sight of the fact that the review is about the game, not the reviewer. Someone like Lester Bangs often crossed that line, and maybe he could get away with it, but few could.

>>stupid sidebars like "how great Kari Wurher and her breasts are in Red Alert 2"

Yeah, but she does have great breasts.

">>stupid sidebars like "how great Kari Wurher and her breasts are in Red Alert 2"

Yeah, but she does have great breasts."

Heh -- yeah, and when I get done reading some reviews I wish I'd spent my time looking at her breasts instead.

">>Games are throwaway consumer products and when people want a review, they just want information about the game.

Ooh, that's a pretty broad generalization. No one has actually tried to provide more literate reviews, so it's impossible to say a segment of gamers wouldn't PREFER that approach."

Well, I can't imagine that anyone would want to read a review of a game and NOT want information about the game. I think getting an informed opinion on the game is always going to be what drives the reader. I'm not arguing against better writing, just that function is more important than form.

"That's not entirely true. I'm honestly not worried about being called a kiss ass. I simply lack the talent to make the positive reviews very entertaining."

I think you underestimate yourself.

"I also think Erik is being disingenuous about the actual critical content in his long reviews, because it's clear he has some pretty strong opinions about game design."

Exactly. It fits the criteria I listed earlier; it's entertaining and it works as a review. There's a reason OMM has such cachet among developers and writers, and it's not all because of the entertainment value of a good roasting.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

"See, but you can get to the point in any number of different ways. If you assume games are just "throwaway" consumer products (which if that's true I'd wonder why they occupy so much of your time), why do you even need reviews? If you just want information, look at the box."

I call them throwaway products because we play them once and never return, for the most part. They're like books in that regard. There might be a few that you re-read, but most are read once and toss and then look for something new.

"Would 100 word blurbs be enough? Or would you prefer that Adrenaline Vault formulaic style: here's the graphics, here's the sound, blah blah blah. That's "just information" about the game, and it probably wouldn't put you to sleep."

I'd prefer shorter reviews when given a choice, but it really depends on the game and how much I already know about it. If I'm really interested in a game and wondering if it's any good or not, I want to look at a number of reviews.

"There are great writers out there, and great gamers, and seemingly very little crossover."

Tell me about it. Oh, brother, is there very little crossover. That's why some of these fan sites are so successful-- they may write like crap, but they play the heck out of the games.

I mentioned to Tom earlier that I have a stereotype of great game journalists being out of touch with their audience; that's why.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

>>I call them throwaway products because we play them once and never return, for the most part.

The key is "for the most part." If some linger, and if you indeed return to some of them, it seems to me you can't really apply your blanket "throwaway" definition to games as a whole. Sure, the vast majority of games are disposable, mediocre, unmemorable, etc., which is true of music, films, books, etc. But with anything like this you have to decide if wading through the crap is worth it to find the few jewels. And if those jewels do deliver something beyond what the mediocre games do, I don't think applying the same broad definition (like calling them "throwaway") is really appropriate. But that's just me... I'd like to think a few games are actually, dare I say it, works of art. Most aren't, nor do they have aspirations of being anything but cheap thrills.

Anyhoo, is Civilization II a throwaway game? Grim Fandango? Daikatana? Heroes of Might and Magic? Baldur's Gate? The Untouchable? Sure, some are, but others, well...

"But that's just me... I'd like to think a few games are actually, dare I say it, works of art. Most aren't, nor do they have aspirations of being anything but cheap thrills."

I guess it depends on what you mean by works of art. I don't think games can be works of art in the sense that a great book, play, painting, or even movie can. I do think there's an art to making a great game and games can be artful, but they fall short of being art.

>>I guess it depends on what you mean by works of art. I don't think games can be works of art in the sense that a great book, play, painting, or even movie can.

Well, that's sort of a neverending discussion, but my definition of art is merely something that affects me in some way, gets me thinking, or entertains me on some great level. I'm not much of an art snob, so I'm pretty easy to please on that front.

"but my definition of art is merely something that affects me in some way, gets me thinking, or entertains me on some great level."

That's pretty broad. That could be a good crossword puzzle or a bad dinner.

I hate to talk about art because it's impossible to do so and avoid sounding pretentious, but to me art is something that shows me what it is to be human. I don't really think games do that as their main thrust.

Erik suggested I check this thread - now I know why. Kari Wurher. Thanks. Didn't know her name. Did she star in any porn? Now that I have imesh I use my computer strictly for porn. Before imesh I would sometimes play games while I waited for porn sites to update - now with that delay gone, I haven't played a game in 4 months.

Erik and I tried to start a porn review site - but to be honest - we couldn't utilize our fortress of hatred on porn. In our eyes there is no bad porn.

Chet

>>That's pretty broad. That could be a good crossword puzzle or a bad dinner.

Nah, because I don't sit around and discuss that crossword puzzle a year after completing it, which I do for certain games. That crossword puzzle is truly disposable.

Ahem,
In November, the San Francisco Chronicle art critic remarked that the center of American art
seemed to have relocated from New York to the West Coast and that no event demonstrated
that more than the recent Christie's auction of contemporary art in New York City, in which a
1990 fiberglass male mannequin sculpture by Los Angeles' Charles Ray, featuring genitalia
copied from the artist's own, sold for $2.2 million. "

[San Francisco Chronicle, 11-26-00]

There's no accounting for taste.

Gleaming Fortress of Hatred (tm)? No kidding. ;)

What I really wonder is how any developer can spend all that time and money and still turn out a bad game. Trespasser comes to mind. Couldn't they have at least included Kari Wurher?

- Alan