Once again, PC Gamer displays their horrendous case of tunnel vision. Not satisfied with simply improving the quality of game reviews, they would rather change their review policy for the worse and then tell us that it’s a good thing.

First, let’s recap: sometime shortly after Kristen Salvatore came aboard as the new Editor-in-Chief, they published their original reviews policy:

It pledged that we would review only finished game code; that said game code would be from the gold master version the publisher uses to create the discs that end up in retail boxes or the equivalents; that MMO and multiplayer-only games would be reviewed in a setting that replicates the consumer experience; and that as such, we’d only review MMOs and MP-only games when we could play them against the general populace.

The problem, they say, is that they can’t wait for Gold Masters of the product that they are reviewing, so that the “general populace” (as Ms. Salvatore so coldly puts it) has a fair opportunity to gauge the quality of what they should be spending their money on.

Waiting for master discs and the opportunity to play an MMO against the rest of the world is making it almost impossible for us to get you reviews you can actually use to make decisions about what games to buy—the time it takes a publisher to replicate the discs and ship them to stores is so short, there’s not enough time for us to see the code in between. As a result, we feel like the quality of PC Gamer is suffering. Our job isn’t to just info-dump details onto you, but also to show you a good time. Doing that well means taking the time to craft our stories, and we can’t do that when we’re making eleventh-hour adjustments because a disc didn’t show up. In most cases, the difference between “finished code” and “gold master” is just Games for Windows certification, anyway.

So what, you’re worried about people that are buying games on release day not having enough information? That’s a bit arrogant in the age of Game Rankings and Metacritic, isn’t it? Anyone that can’t wait until the dust settles before throwing their money at the latest games doesn’t need to think about what they’re buying. They can figure it out for themselves (or not, and continue to waste their money on shitty games). The discerning gamer shoudn’t mind waiting a while for the reviews to start trickling in to make a more informed decision. Based on the last few issues I’ve read, there hasn’t been much “crafting”, anyway. Besides, this “new” policy isn’t – PC Gamer is basically confirming what every major gaming media outlet including themselves was doing anyway. I just have to point to their recent review of Brothers in Arms: Hell’s Highway for an example.

And now, the affirmation of journalistic integrity:

Developers have no incentive to give us unfinished code and call it finished—after all, we’ll continue to harsh on any problems we find, and we do not re-review games.

No, they don’t. But you as a magazine have an incentive to produce quality reviews so people will continue to buy your magazine. I’m probably wrong, of course – people seem to buy your magazine no matter how bad it gets. Furthermore, in your reviews you also have the obligation to do your best to describe the product as it appears on store shelves, so the consumer knows exactly what they are getting into. This includes any DRM – something PC Gamer has gone out of their way to mention – but as far as I can tell this cannot be implemented in what the developer might call “finished code”. You aren’t reviewing the final version of the game anymore; you are reviewing a product that the consumer will never see.

I’ve always adhered to the philosophy that there is no expiry date on good reviews. Computer Games Magazine did it (perhaps the reason why so many felt it was overlooked on the magazine rack), and I do it here. I don’t care if the discussion is out of date: if it’s good writing or analysis, or a clear representation of what the game has to offer, people will read it and appreciate it and maybe even use it to base their next purchase on. Any print publication associated with the games industry is automatically out of date. We know this. Why not take advantage of the format, and stop trying to compete with internet-based media that are so desparate for advertisement clickthroughs that they live by the rule of “publish first, ask questions later”? Gaming magazines should abandon the whole concept of previews and news entirely, and leave that up to the glorified rumor mills so prevalent on the internet. Don’t shy away from publishing 2,000 word reviews that are thought provoking, or at the very least thorough. That kind of writing won’t just make your magazine better, it will help the industry itself gain a bit of respectability. Is it really so much to ask?

Instead, PC Gamer will continue to fool themselves into believing their publication is relevant in this increasingly competitive gaming media landscape by printing early or incomplete reviews in a bid to save what little credibility they may have with PC Gamers. The expectations for what constitutes a good review will continue to wane, and the “general populace” will wonder why their gaming magazine doesn’t represent what they’re buying anymore.