I must be allergic to idiots

#21 A monopoly over gaming press? LOL, Matt...you sure are running out of things to cry about aren't you? Didn't you say that you weren't going to post so much anymore? You're back to your old ways again, and it's worse than ever.

If you think they have a "monopoly" (and I don't think you're using the word correctly in this case), why not start your own gaming news site? Oh, but if your little "fake IRC chat" in the newsletter is any indication of what you're capable of, don't waste your time.

I think you (not just you) misunderstand the meaning of the word editorial. Hmm, seems to be littered with the word opinion. If you're not looking for an opinion, why read an editorial? Huh?

And here's MY opinion...If you're looking for great gaming news and reviews, get yourself a subscription to PC Gamer. Oh, but you probably hate them too...that's too bad.

Yeah, so this is a little "below the belt" and maybe "a bit harsh," but that's the way I work. It seems GarageGames has become more of a forum for [mainly Matt Webster's] griping rather than for useful information...when do we get to vote people off the island? :P

Flame on.

#22 Jim, you are aware that posts like yours and others in this thread sure make my complaint about dumb press look like something written by the Pope. Complaining about one thing unrelated to one person is what could be interpreted as a discussion. All I see from you and your buddies is an opportunity for you to go off-topic and whine and insult about one person.

Although, I find it entertaining. I post one flame-lite thread in months, and then all the people come out of the woodwork to throw their gasoline on it to ensure someone gets burned.

Immature to say the least.

PC Gamer is probably the best when it comes to serious writing, but that's only because they can afford to be a bit more choosy since they are the largest gaming magazine in circulation. Still, one against one-hundred is still a monopoly in my book.

#23 Matt, if I had enough time in the day to scour the boards as much as you, I'd take note of every one of your "negative pissy" threads and send you a report at the end of the day. No lie, every post I happen to check has your attitude in it. There may be 1/10 which you don't post to, and 1/10 of the posts you make that actually have some useful, helpful information. And even most of those have insults sprinkled around them.

You have around 700 posts. How many of them do you HONESTLY think are helpful/useful? If you'd even be close to breaking 100 I'd be surprised.

#24

Quote:when do we get to vote people off the island?

roflmao

#25 Just to make sure Jim can't base his insults on false statements, I decided to spend a few minutes tallying up a bunch of my posts.

Neutral (discussion or comments with no bias): 61
Helpful/Friendly: 33
Mean/Bitter: 4

Out of all of those, the worst I found was when I "backhanded" one person for posting very frequent plans with little substance. Of course, one of the nicest was when I actually offered help to that same person in a thread titled "HELP ME!" which usually means "ignore me, I have a broken caps lock button". The other few included me telling someone he was rather stupid for thinking the Torque Engine should be made free because he doesn't have $100 for it, and the other two in one thread where I showcased my ignorance on copyrights.

So I can see why I should be taken out back and lynched. Sorry everyone, I should know that being sarcastic is punishable by death of flaming. I guess that is my fate.

Of course, what's the punishment for mindless insulting? Or did you decide that you don't have to follow those rules of polite social interaction on the internet, or otherwise?

#26 Give me a break...You really do have way too much time on your hands. By the way, in order to do such a count fairly, you'd need a neutral source to decide what's helpful and what's insulting, and what's neutral. If not for your high and mighty "I'm almost always right" opinion of yourself (find a way to slither yourself out of that insult), you could probably mark most/all of those neutrals as insulting.

I hate people when they're not polite.

#27 Ack okay. I must stop responding to posts like Jim's!

Okay, that's my belated (or very early) new year's resolution. I've got to stop kicking the dead horse if it keeps kicking me back!

#28 Matt,

Dude! Shut the f**k up! Man! What's wrong with you?

#29 Well, it seems as though Matt has a case of Giant EGO Syndrome

#30 agreed uberman

#31 It is interesting that so many other people are frustrated by the lack of maturity etc in the gaming press. Bear in mind that the gaming press, while relatively new, are extremely conservative. Alternative writing styles and methods of analysis are verboten. Editorial policy is to bend over backwards and give 'reasonable' reviews to every game that comes through the door, no matter how unreasonable, unoriginal and unworthy these games may be.

The reasoning for this is obvious; the larger gaming vendors can easily kill any single specialist magazine or website (by refusing to send them free games, or by withholding their advertising). There are many examples of editors getting calls from games publishers complaining about the content of articles, claiming that they were not given a 'fair trial' in the court of public opinion - despite the fact that the game in question is absolute rubbish.

This is an outrage, not tolerated (as far as I know) in any other type of media. If people dislike reading the gaming press (online and off), bear in mind that they dislike writing it more than you dislike reading it.

#32 Ok folks, nominations for "Derek Smart Wannabee of the Year 2002" are now in. And the winner is............

It's a joke!! So laugh dammit!

#33 I agree Jack. Many of the smaller news sites tend to suck up by trying to praise a horrid game, or less popular title. They do this for one of three reasons (from my experiences writing for small game review sites, of course I never did this... hehe, seriously. I didn't!):

1. To get free software - either for future reviews or for them to play with. Most who do it for this reason do it to get free games to play, not to review.

2. To get free advertising (many game developers who produce bad games to decent games will be sure to post links to great reviews, sometimes even the logo of the site that wrote it. The great games don't need to do this, since they either have big advertising budgets or just have too many good awards to list. Usually picks an award or two from the main gaming magazines)

3. Actually likes the game. Not quite as common as the other two, but can be mistaken for the previous two reasons. I mean, someone hadda like that game everyone else hated... why can't it be the reviewer?


The problem is, unless I'm really hyped up for one game (which I haven't, at least since the days of the Dreamcast) I don't tend to go looking for niche game sites. That means it's mainstream game reviews, which means getting free software to review isn't going to be a problem.

Ign or Gamespy or Gamespot could try to offer a more honest and detailed review without fear of much "punishment" the developers or publisher is capable of. Of course, I think they all are hoping to use this as a way to build some contacts or at least some popularity if they want to either move their way up in press (to non-gaming, real press) or just into the industry with whatever talents they might have.

The only reviews I can ever remember from some of those sites that absolutely stomp a game are the ones that are bad AND have little advertising or publisher support. Horrid games made by large or popular companies (Diakatana anyone?) tend to get off lightly when it comes to the reviews.

PC Gamer is the best when it comes to honesty in their reviews, but still they aren't perfect. Some reviews focus too much on graphics, and not enough on gameplay and others complain about less-important details like "doesn't have [feature] from Part 1". Their articles are usually good, but they are very "press kit-y" when it comes to previews of games.

My guess is to bring a closer link to the developer, possibly even paid to preview. "Want us to do a preview on your game? Send us $5000 and four copies of the game!".

Anyone know, is that how PC Gamer handles it's previews? If it charges for them like advertising, that sure makes for an even larger grain of salt to take with them!

#34 Man, this is a little off-topic for me, but Daikatana did get absolutely ripped apart in the gaming press.

Following up on that comment from Simon Windmill, Here's the link to Behind Daikatana:
[/url]

Actually, here's the link to all the behind the games articles which are well hidden on the gamespot website. Enjoy!

[url=http://www.gamespot.com/features/btg/]

#35 Gamespot has reviewed a number of my games and stomped them... they were pretty bad games... developed in tiny (4-6 month) development cycles...

The last game, was pretty good... and the review reflected this...

I feel we were treated honestly by them... the reviews being pretty nuts on...

-J

#36 Wow, cool Josh! Can I see? Links?

I know Diakatana got ripped, but compared to some I've seen (like 0% to 25% ratings) it got away with it's life.

#37 Well... I wouldn't say my experience is indicitive of any industry trend... but here it is... with Gamespot at least...

The first gamespot review was on a ridiculous production... I wrote the entire game... by myself in just over 4 months... it included single and network play... managed a full page ingame rendered Rolling Stone ad out of the deal... thanks to the Harley-Davidson(tm) brandname...

The reviewer took all the screenshots in low texture detail... which was meant for the software renderer... ack!

gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/products/0,11114,197524,00.html

This one got nailed... though really.. it isn't that horrible I don't think

gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/products/0,11114,479614,00.html


This one was actually quite a bit better than the other two... but then again time had also marched on :)

gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/products/0,11114,451421,00.html

There was a gap here were they didn't review two of our games... StreetJam and Harley 3(continuing the fine tradition)... StreetJam was a pretty fun little game... skating with some clever cartoonish characters and some multiplayer game modes... I think it would have gotten a decent rank...

Then there was the last one... by far the most complete game we've made... and the review I think reflected this...

gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/products/0,11114,558805,00.html

We are currently wrapping up another game... I betcha it does worse then Desert Rats :)

-J

#38 Personally I stopped caring about the review that game sites give out. Why? Well as Matt elluded to, most of the sites are too afraid to piss off or upset a publisher/developer by giving an honest review on a project that they wasted a few million dollars on. All of the big game news sites are well-known for doing these types of "reviews" (and this is not limited to just games BTW, it happens in most of the media in general).

Whether you want to trust the content that you get from news sites or not is up to you. But there is no doubting that most of the gaming press is made up of suck-ups.

Logan

#39 "It is interesting that so many other people are frustrated by the lack of maturity etc in the gaming press. Bear in mind that the gaming press, while relatively new, are extremely conservative. Alternative writing styles and methods of analysis are verboten. Editorial policy is to bend over backwards and give 'reasonable' reviews to every game that comes through the door, no matter how unreasonable, unoriginal and unworthy these games may be.

"The reasoning for this is obvious; the larger gaming vendors can easily kill any single specialist magazine or website (by refusing to send them free games, or by withholding their advertising). There are many examples of editors getting calls from games publishers complaining about the content of articles, claiming that they were not given a 'fair trial' in the court of public opinion - despite the fact that the game in question is absolute rubbish.

"This is an outrage, not tolerated (as far as I know) in any other type of media. If people dislike reading the gaming press (online and off), bear in mind that they dislike writing it more than you dislike reading it."

Geez, you don't really know what you're talking about.

I've worked in the gaming press for a number of years. Sure, there's a lot of shoddy stuff published (sort of like how the game industry puts out crap), but the press isn't under the thumb of publishers.

#40 "Personally I stopped caring about the review that game sites give out. Why? Well as Matt elluded to, most of the sites are too afraid to piss off or upset a publisher/developer by giving an honest review on a project that they wasted a few million dollars on. All of the big game news sites are well-known for doing these types of "reviews" (and this is not limited to just games BTW, it happens in most of the media in general)."

I really don't think you have any proof of this.

In fact, I suspect that if you go gamerankings, you'll find that most review scores coincide with review scores submitted by gamers.

Anyway, no big deal. I've long since stopped taking these kinds of unfounded remarks personally. I'm more amused by them than anything.