Topic: PC Gamer magazine.

[Pugnate]

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

[iPPi]

Perhaps you should just stop reading it.

[Pugnate]

haha yea my subscription ends soon. I think I will launch my own magazine. I will call it: NOBSGAMER

Oh and someone wrote something to PC Gamer about BF2 and stuff and this is how they responded. I am not even kidding, the following is a direct quote:

PCG: "We will not hear another word against Battlefield 2, our 2005 Game of the Year. Clearly, you're looking for a magazine written for people that hate games, by people who hate games. We suggest PC Game-Hater Magazine."

[MysterD]

I think the StarForce issue is a no brainer. Everyone should take a stand against that junk. Especially since it won't work on Vista. We need more dev's to just pull the need of the SF-drivers from their game, like Egosoft did w/ X2 and will do soon w/ X3: Reunion.

Nice rant, Pug. See, anything that attacks EA and DICE sounds good to me. But really, we should question DICE, too -- how many times has DICE made a BF-named game and it has been quite buggy? EA often kicks games out the door way too early, but you'd think by now, DICE would eventually get it right now. C'mon, if BethSoft can get it right w/ Oblivion on the technical side, what's DICE's problem?!?!?! Maybe their buggy-ness and EA's practices will blend so perfectly w/ each other, now that EA finally owns DICE and got rid of them.

Though, I will admit this -- NFS: Most Wanted is pretty good. Looks great, plays great, and is ton of fun. So, yeah -- I guess EA had to get *something* right, since DICE ain't doing a great job w/ BF series and all....hehe. I wish there was more of the FMV's in it, though -- b/c they are so stylized and done in the hard noir style and are integrated well into the game. Whoever thought I'd want to see FMV's in a game again......then, NFS: MW has to do it in such a way that it feels fresh. Oh yeah!

About PC Gamer, Pug -- stop reading them, if you find it such junk. Personally, I'd rather read GameSpot, IGN, and GameSpy.

[Pugnate]

Yea I believe in being allowed to complain about something once, and then changing the situation. I'll let my subscription run out.

Also I still would rather read them than IGN or Gamespy. I am not that desperate.

[MysterD]

Yea I believe in being allowed to complain about something once, and then changing the situation. I'll let my subscription run out.

Also I still would rather read them than IGN or Gamespy. I am not that desperate.

For me, the difference is: IGN and GameSpy are free.

PC Gamer ain't worth the subscription $. Screw that.

[idolminds]

I like their podcasts because they talk about gaming stuff. The mag? Well, I dont read the letters section at all. All that shits been covered and answered in hundreds of forums online already. I like some of the previews and such. Like that RTS article I found out about World in Conflict and that sounded pretty cool. I agree though there are a lot of filler games in those list articles.

The reviews I read and usualy ignore the score.

Though I gotta give you the Battlefield and Steam rant. It even comes through on the podcast. BF series has been buggy all along, and instead of patches they push out another half-baked game. Now 2142 is going to have in game ads? Come on!

They just plain ignore Steams problems. They arent alone...I got into this just the other day on the IGN boards. I've got no problem with digital distribution, its nice. But Steam has many many flaws. Forced updates that you may not want, the constant "calling home", yet one more thing to run while playing, etc. If it really was just a way to distribute games online it would be fine.

*EDIT*

The only time I buy a PC Gamer is if theres something I want on the demo disc.

[Pugnate]

Oh my god I totally forgot about the ingame ad thing. A few mags ago they had a huge article on it, which basically was trying to convince the readers that it was a good thing. In that same magazine they had an article on the awesomeness of M$'s plans for the gaming community.

But their push for the in game advertising thing was where it started to get it me. They kept dropping subtle hints that it was a postive move. Their twisted logic was that the ingame advertising wasn't hurting anyone, so why not put up with it?

I mean if you take all these issues like STEAM and EA and in game advertising, you have to wonder why they keep taking the publisher's side on everything?

They are a game's mag, and should stick to the subject. They are excellent when the subject is PC gaming, but things get sticky when they start talking about games politics. Especially since they have taken it upon themselves to be the unoffical spokespersons for developers/publishers.

They should be representing us for a change.

edit:

Here is an example of what I was talking about. And it is a quote on the subject of advertising in games:

"While gamers may cringe at the threat of incursions by marketers into their forums of games, it's a relatively small price to pay for moving PC games further into the entertainment mainstream..."

WTF do they mean? Why do we want games in the mainstream? Mainstream sucks, prime example Deus Ex 2. And who are they to decide it is a small price and why are they trying to convince us?

[idolminds]

Yeah, that doesnt even make sense. This is how I see in-game ads:

They are good:
when they make sense in the game, such as Gran Tourismo
when they make the game cheaper or free, like Trackmania: Nations

They are bad when:
all they do is make evil EA more money and have no benefit to the gamer

[MysterD]

Here is an example of what I was talking about. And it is a quote on the subject of advertising in games:

"While gamers may cringe at the threat of incursions by marketers into their forums of games, it's a relatively small price to pay for moving PC games further into the entertainment mainstream..."

WTF do they mean? Why do we want games in the mainstream? Mainstream sucks, prime example Deus Ex 2. And who are they to decide it is a small price and why are they trying to convince us?

Well, it must be nice for a game to get some good chunk of change to put to their game by allowing an ad in their game -- that must be sweet! About putting in-game ads, like most ideas: we can't be beaten over the head w/ this. Seriously, games can do "very little" product placement like some movies do for authenticity reasons when it makes sense (especially if the game's trying to be very real and authentic) and that's okay, but don't go beyond that and make it freakin' rediculous. For example, in NFS: MW, it makes sense to have a phone that is a "Cingular" phone (your "phone" is basically what is your in-game journal in MFS: MW). Just, don't freakin' over-do it and have ads all over the place and real-name objects in my game everywhere -- and then some. And I don't want to see any in-game commercials that I am forced to watch, either. You know what I mean....?

DX: IW was Ion Storm's fault. It's still a good one despite it's flaws -- namely b/c of the story and gameplay with multiple pathways to explore, but nothing beyond that. It could've been great, again...but, they broke what didn't need fixing!

Underneath all of the "consolizing" of the game on the X-Box, they never really modified the game to work  well on the PC. They made a lot of "bad" design decisions for the PC version, such as leaving the X-Box's console style interface for the inventory system on the PC version. The PC version's inventory system is nowhere as good as the original -- and it should've been adapted to be like the original DX's inventory system, in the regard of point-and-click and drag-and-drop objects. That interface was "bleh." The sequel's stripping of the "leveling up" system that made the original so great was a really bad idea. Throw in the fact it didn't run great and didn't look great, that didn't help either. Let's not forget that implemented unified ammo, too -- another bad idea.

I do understand that PC Gamer wants PC games in the mainstream, more so. If they mean "spotlight", then yes! Many dev's and games do deserve more sales and respect than they do get, if you ask me. But, I don't want that to come at ANY expense of dumbing down anything or "consolizing" anything, if we're to get into the mainstream. If we're to get into the mainstream, the mainstream better take us as we are....or they can forget it.

[iPPi]

Oh yea, I like their podcast.  It has some interesting stuff.  Though I was bored and was listening to it at work.  I haven't listened to it recently though.

[Quemaqua]

I love the Podcast, and they had a rant about in-game ads there, so the article confuses me.  I don't subscribe anymore, but on the Podcast they didn't sound too positive about it.

And honestly Pug, I cry bullshit with a lot of that.  Most mags do that kind of thing.  You can't have a big RTS issue without having some RTS games to list, and those are the ones that are coming up.  Everything like that is sensationalized, but I don't think with the intent of misleading the reader.  It's just the tone of the stuff.  I don't know, I think you're overreacting to that.

I'll give you the Battlefield and Steam stuff, though.  I agree with you completely.  They believe the wave of the future is online distribution, and they've made that clear, and I can't really argue with them.  But I hate Steam and I think it's *bad* and badly implemented.  So I wish they'd at least knock it for that.  And yeah, the Battlefield games are total shit.  I don't care how fun they are, they aren't properly developed games and should get knocked for that.

So yes, I agree with you on both those counts.  But I think you're just letting the other stuff get to you too much.  Any mag has to come up with things to write about, and I think you're mistaking an excited tone for actual hype.  They've always written that way.  I don't think it has ever been with the intention of misleading.

Anyway, try Game Informer.  They're my current favorite game mag.  I think they're pretty damned good.

[MysterD]

I'll give you the Battlefield and Steam stuff, though.  I agree with you completely.  They believe the wave of the future is online distribution, and they've made that clear, and I can't really argue with them.  But I hate Steam and I think it's *bad* and badly implemented.

I like the idea of games being digitally available to me to purchase -- like Steam does. That's cool. If I can't find a game at the local retail store, b/c it's digitally available, I can buy it online. Sweet. Especially if it's an older game that's a hard find, it's even better if it's made available online for a digital distribution purchase.

Though, I don't like the drawbacks that come w/ buying a game digitally for downloading. As long as I can get a physical copy of the game -- whether I can make a physical copy of it to disc or they send me a copy of the game on disc to my house -- and that I don't want to have to deal w/ crappy styles of Internet connection required for piracy verfication, I'm all for online digital distribution of games.

[Pugnate]

I don't think much of it is conspiracy or anything, yes it is filler. I just think they need to start speaking for the readers a bit more on certain issues.

[idolminds]

Wow, did you guys listen to the latest podcast? DJ points out why people dont like steam and they kind of "get it".

[Pugnate]

I've dug this dinosaur up. In today's climate, my thread appears less crazy to me.

Wow, did you guys listen to the latest podcast? DJ points out why people dont like steam and they kind of "get it".

Nope. Could you elaborate?

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.

After my comments, HG:L got an 89% score, when he average was closer to 70%.

What can a publication do in that situation though?

They gave the game a lot of hype, including two covers. Plus they even let Roper write an editorial, and then got exclusive access to the final build of the game before it was released. So when you walk in to look at the final build, give it a go, and find that it falls well below expectations, what do you do?

For the record, I am asking hypothetically. I don't believe Vederman gave it a score he didn't think it deserved. He loves those sort of RPGs and stuff. Like he gave Titan Quest 84%.

But again, just a question. If you've planned a cover for the game in advance, and hyped it like anything, what do you do when find the final build falls well below expectations?

Again, I believe PCG gave it the score they thought it deserved.

[idolminds]

It was a year ago...I dont really remember the details of the podcast (or which podcast exactly it was in). I think they got into talking about Steam, which usually is the same "WE LOVE STEAM!" stuff, but one of them actually brought up the issues that people have with it and actually agreed with them.

[Cobra951]

They still print gaming magazines, on paper?

A year later, nothing has changed.  Steam is still here, and it still sucks.  I still won't have anything to do with it.

[MysterD]

Portal was pretty good -- hopin' for Portal 2.
HL2 Ep Two is pretty good.
TF2 is a good deal of fun.

I really like Orange Box, but sorry -- I still HATE the way Steam works.