You know what? I am getting tired of PC gamer. They'll do anything to write a good article. A preview should be fair, not overly optimistic.
Sometimes I feel like they compromise certain things to fill pages. Like how if they are doing a preview of 10 hot new RPGs, they will include games not worth it just to artificially inflate the list to a number that is more resounding. The stuff they said about Mage Knight made it seem like a hot RPG at the very least and not a game scoring less than 50%.
A classic example is in last month’s magazine they gave a list of upcoming RTSs that promise to change the genre. The first few games are worthy of such a list, but then the rest were obviously added to make the list seem more complete.
Here is an example: “Mark of Chaos’s innovation: Genre Blending of RTS and RPG.” To that I say huh? That’s been done plenty of times before. How is that supposed to revolutionize the genre?
Here is another one: “War Front’s innovation: Fresh take on an established setting. Alternate realities sure spawn some fascinating war machines.” Again, what? The game’s claim to fame is that in its alternate reality Germany and the USA have become allies to fight against Russia. Firstly that sort of alternate reality thing has been done tons of times before, and besides, so what? You change the names, but it is still a WWII war game. I can already assure you the game will suck.
“Command & Conquer 3’s innovation: Reinventing a classic.” This is where I want to stick a pencil in someone’s eye. How the hell is that new? It doesn’t even make sense, how is that an innovation? I can imagine the thought process:
PCG Editor 1: Hey have you heard?
PCG Editor 2: What?
PCG Editor 1: They are remaking C&C with great graphics and on a wider scale.
PCG Editor 2: OMG! ThEy ArE rEiNvENtiNg a CLASSIC! THAT IS SO COOL!
PCG EDITOR 1: I know, it has so not been done before!
Even their Battlefield crap I am sick of. There are obviously so many problems with the game, yet they never talk about them. Also they are obviously not in touch with their readers when it comes to certain issues. Sure they took a stand against Starforce and adverts sponsored by gold farmers, but how about their propaganda in favor of STEAM?
And it is propaganda. I don't even get how they aren't neutral. It is like Valve and STEAM are their masters, and they must please them to get the crack supply running.
Every few pages there are some seemingly innocent comments about how STEAM is awesome and stuff. If they are unable to present a more neutral point of view on the subject, then why talk about it at all.
Seriously reading PC Gamer is like reading something on Fox News; except you replace America with STEAM. I seriously don't get all the ass kissing PC Gamer does for Valve; why not just stick to games? Why talk about a controversial medium of software delivery, if you can't be critical of it at all? PC Gamer seems to defend the shortcomings in certain games, and I have no idea why.
Then we come to EA.
Alright, they took a stand against Starforce. But you want to impress me, take on the giant sponge that is EA. They keep giving Battlefield all sorts of awards; yet never talk about the constant bugs that pop up. They never talk about the fact that every patch creates new problems and buyers are used as beta testers.
PC Gamer by its standards suggests that games should be reviewed out of the box and without patches. Then why the hell do the Battlefield games keep scoring so insanely?
Oh and then here is what I love... the 87% score. It is the score that makes you feel the game is almost worth a 90, but even a point lower and somehow it seems closer to the mid 80s. They often give games 87% that they are too embarrassed to admit they over hyped. They use it to save face. Yes I realize I sound crazy, but I've been reading that mag for 10 years and am pretty sure about this. There is always this one game, that they described to be better than sex with Scarlet Johanson, yet it turned out to be not quite that good. Invariably that game seems to get a score of 87%. Not low enough to be in the mid 80s but just high enough for people to think it nearly touched 90.
As for the letters, sometimes I don't believe some of them to be real. They just sound too idealistic. Oh and the ones that praise STEAM or Battlefield always get printed first. Either that or it is a letter that speaks against piracy. Sometimes it is a combination. It is a letter that speaks against piracy and how STEAM is a necessary evil, and ends with some praise about Battlefield. I always notice the letters that are really critical are always at the end, and the response from PC Gamer always makes the writer to look like some psycho.
Also think about it. What would be the first thing a letter criticizing Battlefield would say? It would be the bugs obviously, since they are the main problem that keeps people from enjoying what is good. Yet none of the letters published criticizing Battlefield ever mention the bugs. It is as if PC Gamer want to find some way of pretending the problem doesn’t exist, at all.
Reader: Hi I love your magazine.
PCG: Thank you. You can now download it off STEAM. BECAUSE STEAM RULEZ!!!111!!!
Reader: Uhhh... ok. Ummm...
PCG: STEAM RULEZ!!!111!!!
Reader: Sure. Ok so...
PCG: STEA...
Reader: SHUTUP!
PCG: ...
Reader: ...
PCG: ...
Reader: So as I was....
PCG: STEAM RULEZ!!!111!!!
Reader: WTF? Listen I love Battlefield.
PCG: BATTLEFIELD RULEZ!!!111!!!
Reader: Yea it does, but what about the bugs?
PCG: Bugs? *sticks fingers in its ears* LALALALALALALALAALALALALALALALALALAAALALA