Game Previews Just Game Marketing? 282
Kotaku has a feature up today written by James Wagner Au, formerly embedded reporter in the world of Second Life. He's now doing his own thing, and he's got a fairly cynical discussion over at the Kotaku site about the real purpose behind game previews in industry rags. From the article: "For the thing of it is, game magazine previews are almost uniformly positive, even for the most undistinguished titles. So it unrolls thus: publisher makes mediocre game; press previews depict mediocre game as being good or at least worth a look; excited gamers read previews, foolishly believe them, start making pre-sale orders of mediocre game; driven by preview press and pre-sale numbers based on that press, retailers stock up on mediocre game; publisher makes money from mediocre game, keeps making more games like it."
Not necessarily "marketing" (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then why would you do it with a game?
And... (Score:2, Insightful)
How could it be otherwise? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll answer the first question.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Because making games is hard.
See also: Websites, records, television programmes
Anything that involves a creative input is difficult because thats the way we're made. We love to think of ourselves as wonderfully creative creatures all very capable of coming up with brilliant new ideas day and night
So you have a difficult creative process blending with some hardcore technical requirements being worked on by just about everyone who wants fame and money.
To be brutally honest, the article should be asking how the hell any games are any good, not why most are bad.
Easy to Criticize (Score:4, Insightful)
Here are your options:
1) Gamers get positive previews and find out what games will look like, how they will play, but will not hear any of the negatives.
2) Gamers hear nothing of new games and have to wait for reviews of the games after they are released. Or worse: purchase based on number of TV ads they see.
Given those, i'll take option #1 anyday. It's not fair to game developers if they will get ripped for framerate issues when they let editors take an early playtest. There's lots wrong with the video-game industry (such as bought REVIEWS). However, overly-positive "previews" are not one of them. They're par for the course and an acceptable trade-off.
Re:I'll answer the first question.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'll answer the first question.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually creativity is easy. Realising it is a fine line though. There are powerful forces in opposition in creative development. On the one hand you have the creative engine, the coders and designers who are extremely progressive and ambitious. On the other side you have very conservative forces of marketing, management, PR and the suits who generally seem to impede creativity at every juncture. A good project is one where these forces balance well to promote realism, the suits temper overambitious artistic and technical energy without actually stifling it to the point of failure. Problem is as industries mature, and especially so with games and film, the conservative forces now dominate. Nobody wants to take a risk on something that might actually be paradigm shifting, better to err on the safe but mediocre side. This is very frustrating to genuinely original thinkers. I've found that the best work is in small, new and ambitious outfits. In the bigger companies you get the same old crap, the suits talk the project up to the public, and talk the project down to the team. It's a cruel deception because in the end, both parties, developers and users are frustrated and disappointed my conservative thinking. Good games companies, like good artists and scientists take risks.
Other possible explanations... (Score:2, Insightful)
As for reviews being overwhelmingly positive, many trade publications operate on this principle, too. Even if you want to say something sucks, you want to put a slightly positive spin on it to keep people spending money on your industry. Besides, you can't always be honest about how you feel when part of the funding for your journal or website comes from advertising, and those advertisers also happen to produce products that you're reviewing.
I wish more places would just adopt a star rating. Rate something between 0 and 5 stars, with 2 stars being an average game. That way, we're talking about the equivalent of an average game getting close to 50%, but the stigma of failing isn't always there.
Re:How could it be otherwise? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are so many posters missing this point? It NOT the goal of this article to point out that previews should be the same as reviews. (BTW: I mean unbiased reviews, because most have the same problems)
Things like vision, core graphics models, levels and premise are MOSTLY completed at the time of previews and can be commented on. But even things that are not finished can still be evaluated on in context of an unfinished game.
Just because it is not finished, does not mean you cannot make ANY critiques at all.
What are you after?? Something like this: (????)
This game has been in development for 2 years now and is set to go gold in 2 months. Currently it is only a cuboid polygon that is moved about with the mouse (with many controller bugs) on a white background. However, we feel confident that this will be THE BEST GAME OF THE YEAR, based on the marketing fluff we were given.
Most of the beta testers of SWG knew what was going to happen on release...
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Really, what's your point? People pre-order cars since most cars are just new revisions / bugfixes to older models with very little changing over each revision (such as the yearly increments of the BMW E46 model for example). I don't think the car business and their merchandise can be compared to the software industry and theirs. Programmers prefer to re-invent the wheel far more often than any other engineering profession.
The gaming industry is a segment of the entertainment industry and as such the same rules governing other practical / utility-industries do not apply. If I pre-order a non-software utility gadget which builds on an existing model (which is often the case), I know pretty much what I'll get. With entertainment this simply isn't true. Thus and apples and oranges comparison.
Re:Love the honesty (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, I think the problem is that people expect a game followed by an "Endgame". The *GAME* is the process of getting to 50, not what you do when you get there. If you don't like the proces of leveling up and developing a character, then don't play the game. I am constantly hearing of people who start a game, find a way to powerlevel through to the end of the game then whine that there is no content and that they are bored. Of course they are fucking bored, they bypassed 95% of the game to get to the end. Its like renting a DvD, fast forwarding to the last 5 mins and then complaining that it was a boring movie and didn't make sense.
I think designers need to start designing games that are enjoyable to play as a process, as a journey, and fuck the people who think the game starts when they get to the end
The very simple reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Right.
Now, how do you get a preview? Unless it's available for download (well, if it is, every mag's gonna have it, so let's ignore those for now), the game company has to send you the necessary goodies.
And now the big question: Will they send you their next preview if you write "This sucks! Bugs, flaws and no interesting gameplay, even if they spend another year on it it will STILL suck!"?
No. They'll send it to a magazine that hypes it into heavens and back. And the magazine that has the article about the preview sells more copies than the one that doesn't.
Sipmle as that.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's not THAT bad. (Score:5, Insightful)
People complain about how many bad games are released nowadays but they forget shitty games were like 80% of the market ALWAYS. Thing it, they got forgotten and we don't remember them anymore. You remember Zork and HHGTTG from Infocom, but you forget a dozen of more medicore games they released. You remember Revenge Of The Mutant Camels, but where's Herbert's Dummy Run? Quake is there, a dozen of Quake knockoffs is forgotten. And press rarely bothered to mention them too.
Though I agree - we're at a crisis moment. Making a game to be of quality comparable with the market leaders is way out of reach of small developer groups. And big players want to play it safe, so they dump innovation. There's fewer good new games than there would be at any moment of the gaming history in the past. And magazines write reviews comparing games to the average. Quake 4 is still at upper 95% of the quality of currently available titles, it's just the quality of currently available titles is at about half the level the quality was in times of Quake 3.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
But my point being, without that first demo or review, you might not even hear of the game at all.
Re:The ultimate example title: MOO3 (Score:3, Insightful)
What a hilarious article. (Score:2, Insightful)
Most previews are positive? Holy shit! Previews help to sell games? Bring me the fucking Bat-phone!
Publishers are interested in publicity, not critical acclaim in reviews that are six weeks late and which nobody reads. Magazines want as much repeat business as they can, so if they know that readers want to hear about a certain game, they can string out their coverage for months on end. Previews have never, ever, in over 20 years of games magazine publishing, served as a forum for criticism. NOBODY has EVER claimed otherwise.
This proposterous swaggering about "naming and shaming" of journalists DOING THEIR JOBS serves no purpose other than to make it painfully obvious that WJA hasn't the faintest idea of how the specialist press works.
The simple fact is that if you still buy games magazines in 2006 then your judgment is already in question; if you pre-order games based on fucking previews then God help you: you are part of Wagner James Au's audience, you are probably part of (rumour-mongering tabloid vermin) Kotaku's regular readership and YOU, not the publishers, not the magazines, are the fucking problem.
Re:I'll answer the first question.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oh, Nostalgia... (Score:2, Insightful)
but it never happened. increasingly i realized that nintendo power was basically a PR magazine. the final nail was when the pak watch (gah, 'pak'? everyone else was calling it 'cart' by that time) column had a thing about the upcoming mortal combat port, and mentioned how the blood was replaced with sweat, saying (quoting from memory), that it "seems fine to this pak watcher. nothing wrong with a little variation." at that point, in my mind i replaced "pak watcher" with "absolute fucking tool", and the cynicism was complete.
now, as an adult, i feel pity for those people involved in making nintendo power. what a waste of life. i have a suspicion, though, that people like that will never be able to comprehend further than their paycheck. suckers.
Re:color me ... Shocked (Score:3, Insightful)
*sigh* PC Gamer, PC Gamer, wherefore art thou PC Gamer? Thoust were taken over by PC Accelerator, forever to be changed into a mediocre magazine. The PC Gamer thy once were is forever dead. Dead, and floating upon the winds of time. Farewell pointy stick and coconut monkey, I knewest thou well.
Re:Previews: the reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Congratulations. You have just independently rediscovered the principle that you are not the customer. You are the *product*. *You* are sold to the advertiser. The advertiser is the customer who pays to make the magazine cheap.
And guess who the advertiser is in this case? That's right, the game publishers.
Of course, you could just stop reading the magazine if you don't like what the writers have to say and how they say it...
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the sites I've written reviews and previews for actually had it as a rule: Previews are to remain positive. Why? Because it's a look at an UNFINISHED product, and it's not fair to be critical at that stage, at least not publicly (we frequently give feedback directly to the development teams). I've seen good games go bad, and I've seen bad games become amazing. Everything deserves a fair shake, so we remain "cautiously optimistic."
A well-written preview should refrain from editorializing at all, simply stating the intent the developers have with the game, and the time frame they intend to do it in. There are ways to sneak that editorial opinion in, however. ("This very early look
Re:Easy to Criticize (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly, the submitter and almost every commenter so far seems not to have read past the first few paras, if that. He DOES propose a solution. So, for the benfit of those non-RTFAs:
And Slashdot would be the perfect place to give this some momentum. If anyone had done more than read the headline and make "duh, obvious" remarks.It's what the readers want. (Score:3, Insightful)
They read previews to be excited for a few months, enjoying the anticipation of playing the greatest game ever. They're reading the magazine to get a little lift. In short, most readers *aren't* curmudgeons.
With positive previews everybody wins. Pages are filled, publishers get free publicity, stores pre-order more games, magazines get a closer relationship with the publisher, advertisers (who want happy game-buying readers) are happier, and readers get their thrill of anticipation (which takes their mind off the game they're playing now...)
Outside of a few curmugeons like me (and many of the previous posters), people no more want honesty in gaming magazines than they do in health magazines ("forget special diets - simply eat less calories and get moderate exercise" doesn't benefit anyone. The advertisers don't want it, and neither do the readers). The magazines give people what they want, and the one's that chose different paths have all gone bankrupt.
If you want *real* reviews by people who paste games that "deserve it", smaller websites that don't depend on readers or game advertising for financing (i.e. labors of love) are the only viable medium.