Tales of a Scorched Earth

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.

Glutton for punishment, and all that other crap: yes, I am reading the print version of PC Gamer again for lack of anything better in the PC-only category. Any help on finding something better would be appreciated. Really, this is incredibly demoralizing.

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.