Current Events > Reading old video game magazines..man, game journalists used to love video games

(+) Yeah! (+)

What happened?

Thanks to the internet hate is gr8.8 and gets you more success and money

The more games there are and the more one person tries to review, the less they really get it. I'd say that, nowadays, it feels they just review the first 5 minutes after the first cutscene is done, but it's been like that since the early 10s, at least.

Mainstream gaming has adopted terrible predatory practices nowadays. Journalists are right to point that out.

Dark_Arbron posted...

Mainstream gaming has adopted terrible predatory practices nowadays. Journalists are right to point that out.

Exactly. You used to pay $60 once and get a full experience.

yeah but they hated Japanese games that werent Nintendo or FF

Game Informer is still a great magazine, despite Gamestop's efforts otherwise.

paid reviews and coverage were a lot more ubiquitous back then

Kaiganeer posted...

paid reviews and coverage were a lot more ubiquitous back then

Nintendo Power never hid what it was.

I think a lot of it was that the writers then were journalists, or people who aspired to be journalists. Now, they're bloggers aspiring to be YouTubers.

PerseusRad posted...

yeah but they hated Japanese games that werent Nintendo or FF

I don't think you're looking back far enough, console gaming was absurdly dominated by Japanese games in the 90s and I'm not aware of any mainstream magazine that denied that.

KI_Simpson posted...

I don't think you're looking back far enough, console gaming was absurdly dominated by Japanese games in the 90s and I'm not aware of any mainstream magazine that denied that.

Before I moved I looked back at a bunch of my mid-90s nintendo power/egm/gamepro.

There was a ton of personality in them. Most of it was kind of stupid, but there was definitely a different "tone" and charm in how they were written. It was always an advertising vehicle, but somehow newer mags feel much more corporate and sterilized in how they're written.

Maybe because early magazines tried to do a lot of bits and recurring jokes and over-exaggerated writer personalities. I loved it as a kid but It would probably just annoy me now.

WilliamPorygon posted...

Exactly. You used to pay $60 once and get a full experience.

is that why after paying for SFII World Warriors, I also had to pay for SFII Turbo then Super SFII to get the full experience?

PerseusRad posted...

yeah but they hated Japanese games that werent Nintendo or FF

That wasnt my experience.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/8/1/AABA6UAAE745.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/8/3/AABA6UAAE747.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/8/4/AABA6UAAE748.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/7/8/AABA6UAAE742.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/8/5/AABA6UAAE749.jpg

90s magazine writers were paid significantly better than the blog writers of the last decade.

AmericaTheBrave posted...

What happened?

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/8/2/AAOy1LAAE746.jpg

Questionmarktarius posted...

Game Informer is still a great magazine, despite Gamestop's efforts otherwise.

Most of the staff that made it great is gone unfortunately

Monthly release of magazines meant journalist actually had time to play and review things.

Pay was notably better so people could actually do this for living.

The gaming industry itself was less terrible, or at least less openly terrible anyway. So people were just happier with it in general.

AmericaTheBrave posted...

What happened?

Hatred and negativity is more profitable.

WilliamPorygon posted...

Exactly. You used to pay $60 once and get a full experience.

No, you had the illusion of a full experience. No awareness of cut content. Never mind updated rereleases of then-current gen games within the same dang gen.

rexcrk posted...

Hatred and negativity is more profitable.

Not as much of an outrage culture then.

As they journos reached 40 they started having mid life crises and realising how little they contributed to the world and how little many of them would be missed when their gone, hence the urge to make articles "socially relevant" and be hollow imitations of "real journalists" and that they were salty they'd never be

TBH even gaming mags back then were capable of corruption. Remember that overhyped, shitty fighting game Rise of the Robots? They devs actually allowed several magazines to access the game early if they gave 10/10s, and this led to the closure of many once the public found out they were being lied to.

Fenriswolf posted...

TBH even gaming mags back then were capable of corruption. Remember that overhyped, shitty fighting game Rise of the Robots? They devs actually allowed several magazines to access the game early if they gave 10/10s, and this led to the closure of many once the public found out they were being lied to.

Also Driv3r gate.

Yup.. They were actual gamers. I was lucky enough to get to hang out online with quite a few of them back in the day. (on gamers and then 1UP - EGM/OPM/CGW etc as a mod) I call them the first generation of gaming press. before corporate media and business bought everything out and started demanding creds, clicks and crap.. Which is how we ended up the current second gen gaming press. Hacks and journalism failures/rejects, butthurt that they have to write about games. So much of the current industry and fandom dysfunction could be tied to this.

CreepyGuy2007 posted...

As they journos reached 40 they started having mid life crises and realising how little they contributed to the world and how little many of them would be missed when their gone, hence the urge to make articles "socially relevant" and be hollow imitations of "real journalists" and that they were salty they'd never be

Yeah, that too.. For the few that remained through the years.

Because when you're being paid by the game's manufacturer to make sure every game review makes even the worst game seem to be at least "OK", as opposed to creating your own content and being honest in your reviews, it could be seen as "loving video games".

Fenriswolf posted...

TBH even gaming mags back then were capable of corruption. Remember that overhyped, shitty fighting game Rise of the Robots? They devs actually allowed several magazines to access the game early if they gave 10/10s, and this led to the closure of many once the public found out they were being lied to.

GamePro and Nintendo Power gave positive reviews for almost every game.

CreepyGuy2007 posted...

As they journos reached 40 they started having mid life crises and realising how little they contributed to the world and how little many of them would be missed when their gone, hence the urge to make articles "socially relevant" and be hollow imitations of "real journalists" and that they were salty they'd never be

It does seem like some some of the newer ones are embarrassed to be game journalists and wish they were "real journalists" hence injecting social issues into everything.

I remember there was an old magazine called Amiga Power which used to give 50% to average games and even 10% to truly unplayable games, and the game publishers hated them for it, to the degree of not providing them review copies.

Mags back in the day were of course more passion and dedicated fan because of course it was.

You were dealing with a very niche fan base. Before video games could claim to be as large as movies.

Back in the day imo, earlier magazines had that more Zine vibe going on.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zine

If you ever got into those fan groups.

Of course over time, things became more professional and people got paid more to do a job, and not just take crappy pay to indulge in their hobby/passion reviewing on games.

Fenriswolf posted...

I remember there was an old magazine called Amiga Power which used to give 50% to average games and even 10% to truly unplayable games, and the game publishers hated them for it, to the degree of not providing them review copies.

Sounds like they actually understood the concept of scale. 1 to 10 actually meant 1 to 10.

Not like the nonsense nowadays with score inflation where anything less than 7 is considered an insult. It isnt 1 to 10 anymore, its 7 to 10.

Bass_X0 posted...

That wasnt my experience.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/8/1/AABA6UAAE745.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/8/3/AABA6UAAE747.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/8/4/AABA6UAAE748.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/7/8/AABA6UAAE742.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/8/8/5/AABA6UAAE749.jpg

I was more of a Total! reader, but Super Play always had some banging covers.

rexcrk posted...

Hatred and negativity is more profitable.

We used to have that in the letter pages.

Dark_Arbron posted...

Sounds like they actually understood the concept of scale. 1 to 10 actually meant 1 to 10.

Not like the nonsense nowadays with score inflation where anything less than 7 is considered an insult. It isnt 1 to 10 anymore, its 7 to 10.

A lot of other review mediums do the same thing. It isn't score inflation, it's because we associate it with the grading system in schools where anything below a 70/100 is just barely squeaking by.

Dark_Arbon posted...

Sounds like they actually understood the concept of scale. 1 to 10 actually meant 1 to 10.

Not like the nonsense nowadays with score inflation where anything less than 7 is considered an insult. It isnt 1 to 10 anymore, its 7 to 10.

That's why I only rate on a 5 point scale.

Love
Like
Average
Dislike
Hate

Vastly removes a ton of bias, score inflation, and "passing grade" vagueness.