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.

I picked up the Holiday 2008 issue for the reviews of Fallout 3, Far Cry 2, Dead Space and Warhammer Online, which were predictably full of the facetious praise you’d expect for these blockbuster releases. The review of Dead Space was especially puzzling, as it told me next to nothing about what it was like to play the game, except perhaps its aborted attempt at a closing paragraph with some comments on the controls. But hey, I can agree with Dan Stapleton’s sentiments – they sure do suck.

Though what I found most interesting was the rather optimistic retrospective from the new editor-in-chief Kristen Salvatore, on the magazine’s upcoming 15-year anniversary:

I love that we’re old. I love working for a publication that’s established…that has worked to grow and change along with its readers, and that’s shown its commitment, standards and professionalism far surpass [sic] so many of the fly-by-night outlets that the internet has given birth to…We do a better job than many bloggers. We are better respected among publishers and developers…we take well-written, well-crafted writing very seriously. We use fart jokes sparingly.

It sure makes a fine summary of PC Gamer’s current position on journalistic integrity and takes a dig at game webloggers too! I’d almost take offense, except for Tim Edwards’ review of Far Cry 2:

[Your buddy] gives you a weapon and informs you that the United Front for Liberation and Labor (UFLL) are holding another foreign mercenary hostage to the South. You go and rescue the mercenary: Nasreen Davar, a hottie.

Obviously not the same commentary that can only be developed with age and experience. And I’m not even going to touch the closing paragraph, that’s full of so many adjectives I can’t figure out if he is recommending the game or trying to beat me over the head with a thesaurus.

Granted this is one review, but in the face of Salvatore’s editorial I can’t help but think her comments are trying to prop up the magazine against the overwhelming tide of professional and amateur games writing that is now so prevalent on the Internet. And some of it is actually worth reading. I read the magazine for six years (1998 – 2004), quitting shortly before editor Rob Smith left when the magazine had taken a serious nosedive in quality. At one point during my years reading the magazine I had convinced myself it was one of the pillars of modern game journalism. I even wanted to work there. But things have changed in the print game journalism landscape. Computer Games Magazine, a place where quailty writing was never in short supply, died far too young. Massive, a magazine dedicated to the fast paced world of MMOGs printed three issues. Computer Gaming World was rebranded Games for Windows and halted publication after only a year of operation, its success likely hindered by the poor support of retailers who fail to highlight the Games for Windows “platform”. I’d like to think that there is still a need for a print publication dedicated to PC gaming, but perhaps I’m just being nostalgic. PC Gamer is the last one standing, and has the opportunity to become that bastion of solid games journalism we like to talk about but never seems to materialize. The magazine has certainly changed over the years, but not for the better and certainly not to adapt to the needs of the audience that helped establish the magazine in the first place. This can easily be corrected with their financial resources and standing in the industry – and I hope that Ms. Salvatore is finally the one to take on that responsibility.

In this same issue, Brothers in Arms: Hell’s Highway received its delayed final score of 93%.

I was going to play it anyway.

While we didn’t encounter any bugs in the build we played, at the last moment before going to press, we received word from Gearbox that their commitment to fixing a one-in-200 crash bug has delayed final code of the game. In addition, Ubisoft was unable to provide specific information about possible DRM restrictions at press time. In keeping with our policy of reviewing finished code, we are withholding our score until next issue when we’ve played the final. In the meantime, we feel that the text detailing what we saw in the build we played will be helpful to you in making your game purchasing decision.

Being my usual cynical self, my first reaction was: what were you doing reviewing unfinished code? Furthermore, if specific information about DRM was required to provide a final score, what in the fuck is Spore doing with a 91%?

Is this another way of saying that exceptions are made for the big releases? That something as restrictive as the DRM that comes with Spore should simply be ignored in the interest of getting that high-rated exclusive review to press? In all fairness to PC Gamer, from what I saw in the other game reviews they do mention where games have potentially intrusive DRM in a sidebar.

Yet in the same issue, the review of Crysis Warhead has a note that says:

Although we know that Crysis Warhead will use SecuROM copy protection and require online activiation, there was no word at press time about the exact number of installations that will be permitted per copy…nor whether those installations will be revokable.

And despite that nebulous advice, the game got a 73%.

Hell’s Highway seems to be the exception here, and calls into question what should constitute a comprehensive and fair review in the age of DRM.

I’ve followed the saga of Spore‘s DRM and the backlash from fans, gamers and consumers of said product, and while EA has made the token gesture of allowing gamers to install it five times instead of three, the precedent has already been set: gaming software is disposable. By accepting the EULA and subsequently installing whatever copy protection or check-in application that runs alongside the actual game, you are essentially agreeing to terms that allow you to use the software temporarily, and completely on the terms of the publisher. Spore isn’t the first title that ignited such a response from gamers: Both BioShock and this year’s PC version of Mass Effect used similar technology. Though in BioShock‘s case, the DRM was removed by a later patch in response to complaints.

Despite this criticism from the game-buying public, the influence of these practices by publishers to protect their software are still absent from most reviews, and how it affects the game playing experience. In the interest of reviewing the game itself and not getting caught up in technical issues, I can understand this approach. But to me, this is the same thing as talking about minimum system requirements. It certainly affects the replayability of the game if you can only install it a limited number of times. And what about the game’s posterity? Will this authentication work in 10 years? The ability to play any game I own whenever I feel like it is a comforting thought – but this appears like it may be a luxury of the past. The once simple act of installing a PC game is becoming a more involved process; I only have to look back at the angry mob waiting for Steam to register their retail copy of Half Life 2 just so they could play it. And this, it seems, was only the beginning.

I don’t expect a reviewer to hold up a final verdict because DRM details were not available, or if the reviewer agrees with these practices. DRM isn’t going anywhere, and at that rate no game would ever get a score (certainly a good day in my book, but that’s a topic for another discussion). But I do expect to have some discussion on its effects on the game present in the review. Gamers should be made aware of what they’re getting into with each purchase. Once the user has accepted the EULA and is ready to install the game, the chances of returning it for a full refund just dropped to 0. If they are unsatisfied with any aspect of the game they are basically stuck with something they don’t want. They’ll be lucky if they can unload it on the secondary market, but for PC games that’s becoming an equally daunting proposition as modern DRM works towards isolating installations to the original machine. Indeed, DRM is now entrenched in PC gaming culture, and it’s about time that game reviews started addressing more diligently, or at the very least more consistently.

I confess that I’m something of a literature snob, so it isn’t easy for me to admit I enjoyed a mainstream book like The Da Vinci Code – I love that it’s rooted in factual historical mysteries unlocked with factual historical information.

Except that it isn’t. I guess it was wrong to assume that Brown’s detractors had actively slagged both the book and the film enough over the past three months to get people to start thinking clearly, pointing out that the basis for most of his novel was either entirely fiction or a pseudo-historical text that had been written simply to support some religious crackpot theory. But factual? Come on, a literature snob would have at least done a little casual research before making a statement like that.

Game magazines in the age of modern gaming is a topic that I have been struggling with for some time, and I’ve convinced myself they are a necessary evil when internet access is not easily at hand. Though I’ve come to an impasse where PC Gamer is concerned – I’ve basically had enough of their antics, and buying a magazine for Greg Vederman’s RPG reviews and amusing hardware section cannot in good conscience be defensible any longer.

PCG has always been a hefty tome, attributed to the ridiculous amount of advertisements found throughout an issue, and like Wired, sometimes entirely devoid of useful content. As other fellow gamers dropped support of this mag, citing a lack of well written editorial content, lazy reviews, and typical PR/hype-laden previews, I stayed the course, thinking that any publication that slags a game that bought an ad in the same issue has got to be credible to some degree. As long as I had PCG, I would never go wrong on a game purchase.

Skip forward a few years when I started writing game reviews for fun – before even starting this site. Sad, I know, but I figure at least now I have somewhere to put them. Although far from a professional I began to notice patterns in the writing. Specifically the previews, which are every real gaming journalist’s worst nightmare. How is it that these writers can find something unconditionally positive to say when it’s clear the game is not yet complete, or worse, it’s obviously a derivative pile of crap? The reviews maintained a pretty fair viewpoint, but in my increasingly cynical eye it became clear which ones the publisher had bought. On the same token, PC Gamer still managed to make me question my own judgement at some points – Sacred and Far Cry come to mind – with mixed results.

Up to this point, I had considered PC Gamer a bastion of gaming review integrity. And then their world exclusive Doom 3 review came out. It was a fair review in hindsight, but the problem is the entire magazine’s stance on innovation in gaming – and Doom 3 had none, aside from its technically superior engine. I wouldn’t say this shook the pillars of my faith, but it was a definite step in that direction. After the cover story was leaked, many gamers claimed this downturn in editorial quality had been going on for some time; I guess in my devotion I was just blind to it.

When I purchased the following issue with the world exclusive Quake 4 preview, I didn’t get it for that specifically. Instead it was my monthly routine, looking forward to some demos that I may have overlooked that are included on the accompanying CD. I had seen some of the concept art for Q4 already, and I knew Raven was developing, so I guess I just wasn’t that interested.

Reading the article, the screens and example character models looked too much like Doom 3. And the environments, corridors and described situations sounded all too familiar to the action that I experienced only a month previous on the Mars base. Even the weapons are boring and of Doom 3′s run of the mill variety. But what really caused surprise were Dan Morris’ overly positive sentiments, while creepily stressing how different it was from Doom 3. The preview also emphasized repeatedly how Quake 4 will envelop you in the most visceral of space combat situations, complete with a variety of vehicles. Yet Raven has no plans on carrying this over into multiplayer, citing that vehicular combat should remain with Battlefield 1942 and Quake should be, well, Quake. So much for creative competition.

Since reading PCG’s second exclusive review of Half Life 2, I told myself it would be the last issue. It was too hard for me to accept their extremely high rating with so little justification. Indeed, Chuck Osborn was careful not to “give anything away”, but as render already put it, it’s not like we haven’t seen everything already. And this is nothing against the game, because I’ve already made my position on that known. I just felt that the review didn’t really tell you anything except that it “redefines the art form”. Curiously, an article featuring the magazine’s former editor laments the disappointment of Doom 3, while concurrently downplaying PC Gamer’s review two months before.

In the same issue, Mr. Osborn gives us a very convoluted description of the first quest in Vampire: Bloodlines in a preview. No real descriptions of game mechanics, the interface or the implementation of White Wolf’s rules are present. Accompanying the many screens are captions that comment about the excellent quality of the game’s graphics – something I’m still waiting to be fulfilled as I play through the game myself. Bloodlines’ graphics are far from brilliant and despite the system requirements don’t even come close to the rendered characters and environments of Half Life 2. Again, nothing against the game, because I think it’s amazing. The preview was just incomplete, if not misleading.

Though I’ve considered switching to Computer Games in the past, every issue I have picked up has been at least a month out of date. Naturally late reviews never really go out of style if they’re well written. But their problem is that they’re still trying to compete with the preview, ad and PR-engorged magazines on the rack next to them instead of exploiting their thought provoking writing. Trying to beat magazines with a readership like PC Gamer’s to the exclusive is an exercise in futility. Their December issue featuring a key to a recent Guild Wars beta weekend was a great read, the most memorable article being Tom Chick’s review of The Sims 2 that was specifically aimed at the gamers who were “too cool” to play the original. Most of the other reviews seemed standard – Kevin Rice’s United Offensive review comes to mind – but for the most part the entire package read like a stimulating conversation, instead of a catalogue.

A quick browse of Play magazine seemed promising, although the layout came across as being a little too screenshot/art-centric for me, and the articles I did read were pretty fluffy and geared towards more of a console audience. Book of Hook does a detailed run-down of Computer Gaming World, which is another alternative I considered after reading about relative scoring methods of gaming publications. Unfortunately he ranks it only slightly higher than Gamepro – probably the biggest waste of pulp the industry has ever produced.

Due to their convenient level of accessibility, game magazines will always be a part of my gaming lifestyle. There’s just something satisfying about picking up a publication dedicated to such an exciting hobby. Though with an increasing amount of competition between magazines and gaming websites, a publication that dedicates itself to quality writing will almost always lose out to a cover story announcing “exclusive screens” or “world’s first review”. And with the PC as my chosen platform, my hope slowly dies every time I visit my local bookstore and I see less and less print being dedicated to this platform alone. If there is another gaming magazine worth reading, preferably PC-centric, I’d definitely like to hear about it.

walking up a slide