COLUMN: 'Game Mag Weaseling': Mag Roundup 4/21/07
['Game Mag Weaseling' is a weekly column by Kevin Gifford which covers video game magazines from the late '70s all the way up to right now.]
Very few new US mags hit shelves the past couple weeks, but that's all right because everyone was too busy dissecting GI's GTA4 feature anyway. I have the entire magazine on my mind, though, and click on to read my views on how the world's top-circulation game mag is doing in its quest to keep itself relevant...
Game Informer May 2007
Cover: Grand Theft Auto IV
I'd like start by reprinting some of editor-in-chief Andy McNamara's opening statements this issue:
"I find it funny that almost daily I read about how print is dead on some Internet site. It's like they have nothing better to do than belittle their competition, rather than compete. To the naysayers: Magazines are here to stay, whether the Internet likes it or not [...]
I actually enjoy the avenues that open up to us when creating a magazine. In the early days of Game Informer, we spent a lot of time and effort cramming as much news into an issue as we possibly could. Thankfully, regurgitating every minor press release is no longer our charge. Magazines are about the big picture. This lets us do more in-depth reporting and analysis. we can look at what is and what isn't important to the gamer today, and find the stories that we think are shaping gaming now and for the future."
I think statements like these should be pretty familiar to anyone who's read this column before. As I've mentioned, pretty much every magazine these days, from GI and EGM all the way down to Beckett's publications, are trying their best to be interesting to read in and of themselves -- become coffee-table items, in other words -- rather then pretend to be authoritative on every aspect of gaming.
So how well has this issue of Game Informer (arguably one of the most closely examined in years) lived up to McNamara's goal of covering the big picture over the details? Well, the "Connect" news section up front personifies it. This particular month's Connect is a little more news-y than usual, devoting spreads to previews of upcoming MMORPGs and the very old news of Sony's GDC announcements (Edge did it nicer a month ago).
Much more interesting, however, is the six pages on game focus groups -- a feature I think EGM did a while ago, but with nowhere near this amount of depth and featuring this amount of input from both group members and industry people, both "speaking under condition of anonymity" and not. There's also an interview with Randy Pitchford (an interesting talk about the very boring topic of FPSes) and a very nice piece from the chief creative officer of Cryptic Studios (City of Heroes) about the future of the MMO industry.
Following this is the feature well, with 10 pages on GTA4 and six on All-Pro Football 2K8. Like most issues of Game Informer, this is where I start to wonder if McNamara's team loses their focus on "the big picture". What is it about either piece that couldn't have been done by IGN (and, indeed, probably will be done over the next few months)? I'm not sure there's much of anything, really.
Both articles are interesting if you are interested in the game in question in the first place. They are glorified feature lists enhanced with developer quotes and insulated by hundreds of words of filler. The same continues with the 17 pages of "regular" previews afterwards, which give you very little reason to want to read them at all, and the reviews are as they are in any mag -- helpful as another opinion, but not what you're buying the magazine for.
Now, GI is not the only magazine with boring features and previews. They all do, though I'd make the argument that mags like EGM, OXM and Games for Windows are at least trying to do away with them. What's more, GI's news/commentary section is totally unique among US games media (online or off) and I think it's easily worth the price of a subscription all by itself.
But does having an enormous circulation and every PR lady in the world trying to get her game on your cover mean that it's OK to publish features and previews that not only could be reproduced online, but probably done better online? I know I'm being harsh by expecting an industry leader to completely revamp itself overnight against the wishes of management, but while GI has made great strides toward McNamara's goal, I think they have just a bit further to go.
Tips & Tricks May 2007
Cover: God of War II
This must be what it feels like when you're attending a White House dinner and find yourself wearing the same evening gown as Laura Bush. Tips & Tricks this month starts out with six pages on the professional gaming circuit...just as an entire magazine, Beckett eSports, debuts on newsstands that's devoted to the same topic. T&T even printed the exact same photo of Halo 2 player Dave Walsh on the cover's top-right corner that eSports used for their main cover subject. The article's more interesting than all of eSports, though, concentrating on all the highlights of the scene without feeling obliged to report every little tournament detail.
The column lineup's exciting as ever, including two more pages of ancient Nintendo toys (I need to find out where Chris Bieniek got this stuff) and a couple of neat dev interviews.
Hardcore Gamer May 2007
Cover: Spider-Man 3
Was I the only subscriber to HGM who thought that this cover was actually a stick-on advertisement hiding the "real" cover? For that matter, am I the only subscriber to HGM at all? Is there anyone else out there? It's lonely...
The big news this month: all the editors now have weblogs, which you can access via hgmblog.com if you're too cool for clicking. Otherwise, you know the score for this mag by now, although the GDC "Junket Journal" is kinda a fun read.
[Kevin Gifford breeds ferrets and runs Magweasel, a site for collectors and fans of old video-game and computer magazines. He's also an editor at Newtype USA magazine.]









Comments
Hey Kevin,
I fail to see how getting world exclusive content that you can't get anywhere else isn't offering our readers something unique and worth the price of a magazine.
We also work very hard to make sure that those 16 to 20 pages of previews have as much unique content as possible, including many exclusive details and screens that aren't available online (I would say about 60 to 80% on average).
Our reader feedback has always shown great support for our cover stories and features.
Saying that the magazine isn't completing its goal because the previews will be online months later seems an unfair judgment. By that same logic you would say those online sites shouldn't do the previews because Game Informer did it months before.
I feel that you aren't looking at what we are doing, you are looking at the medium we are doing it on. If the internet has some news piece we run in our magazine we are behind and outdated according to you. But if we go get a world exclusive look at GTA IV that isn't online we are old and outdated because online can do it months later? I'm confused.
I enjoy the column, Kevin. I read it every month. I just feel that we are sometimes unfairly judged simply because we are print.
Cheers,
Andy
Posted by: Andy McNamara | April 23, 2007 10:13 AM
Hello Andy,
Aw, thanks for reading.
As implied in your editorial, readers increasingly go to game websites if they're looking for exhaustive details about every little thing in the industry. But the Internet is more than game websites -- it's also the forums and other random sites, which put up scans and summarized info from nearly all of GI's cover stories. Not all of GI's readers are people who follow game news every hour on the net, but particularly this month, I think that most anyone online with an interest in GTA4 got the scans/summary before the issue arrived in their mailbox. World exclusive content is great to work with, but if all the forum folks know about it already, then what purpose is that article on the world-exclusive game serving?
Now, that can't be stopped to some extent, of course. But speaking as a reader and a guy who loves print media and wants to see it stay as relevant as possible, once the next big exclusive reveal comes around, the way I'd like to see it approached is "All right, I have some screens and some features I'm allowed to talk about -- now what can I do to make the 6-8 pages I need to fill honestly interesting, to the point where people would want to read the feature even if they didn't care at all about the game/genre it was talking about?" I think that's the fundamental difference between mags and online media these days, more so than the time lag -- people read IGN to research a game, but people read GI because they like GI's writing -- and I'm seeing mags of all sorts trying to improve on this point from one angle or another.
Still, this is just my personal opinion. Complementing a mag with the Internet is a challenge that all print media face, and I singled out GI this installment simply because this particular issue is the highest-profile release of the month. Regardless of which way the two of us look at it, I commend you and your staff for tackling the topic and trying to create a more interesting game mag for the Internet generation, something I think you've succeeded at in many ways.
(The mag I work for admittedly gets off easy in this respect because girls with pink hair and big eyes still look better in high-quality print than on your PC monitor.)
Posted by: keving | April 23, 2007 1:53 PM
I did a spit-take when I saw the "Junket Journal" in Hardcore Gamer, as I created that title and concept circa 2003 for a column in PSE2, the Dimension Publishing magazine that was literally impossible to find on newsstands for the last few years of its run.
Greg Off, EIC of Hardcore Gamer, was the editor of PSE2 back in the day, so I'm guessing he "borrowed" my idea for HGM. I wish he would've asked first, or even just given me a heads-up.
Posted by: Zach Meston | April 25, 2007 8:59 AM
I exchanged emails with Greg (and Tim Lindquist, HGM's publisher), and we determined that the use of the term "Junket Journal" to describe the GDC piece was an unintentional coincidence, nothing more. I jumped to an incorrect conclusion, and I apologize to Greg and Tim for doing so.
Posted by: Zach Meston | April 25, 2007 3:08 PM
Poke fun at us all you like, I'm just happy we're growing steadily while so many other game mags are struggling to survive.
Posted by: Tim Lindquist | April 25, 2007 4:32 PM
I eventually arrived at this page from a bibliographical footnote link on GTA IV's Wikipedia entry. Dude, no offence, Kevin Gifford, but like...your article on GTA IV was painstakingly difficult for me to read. Like, I don't even think it made sense. I mean, Plato's "Apology" made a lot more sense to me than you just did. At least the articles in magazines like GI are probably edited; your work clearly isn't.
Why do you think people read magazines like GI anyways, dude? Because they don't want to read crap like this.
Posted by: Alan Smithee | April 21, 2008 10:11 PM