For what? It's subjective anyway. They're a lot better than most gaming websites.Eurogamer got put on GAF's List of Sites That Don't Matter late last year.
For what? It's subjective anyway. They're a lot better than most gaming websites.Eurogamer got put on GAF's List of Sites That Don't Matter late last year.
Lots of people in the US press, you've never heard them? All the 1up folks used to, GiantBomb do it plenty too.
This has nothing to do with European Gaming Journalism.
Eurogamer, Edge, Games TM and RPS are all British. Thanks.
I definitely wouldn't attribute anything associated with Eurogamer or Edge to be good gaming journalism, I think they are both terrible and have gotten worst instead of better.
The Guardian is also really good as far as mainstream newspapers go.
Yep eurogamer and RPS are two my favorite sites.
Also an extremely valid statement because they constantly prove it as well, Some parts of the sites may produce good content but both sites as a whole are terrible.An extremist blanket-statement. Both EDGE and Eurogamer (Digital Foundry comes to mind) produce great and interesting articles and reviews.
Edge isnt worth buying though, seeing as 90% of the content is online now. Granted that's a different issue to the quality of writing, but it does contribute to a general decrease in standing of the magazine.
The UK's got you covered, you mean.
Well, people from the US/UK represent the majority of GAF (probably?), so what use are German/French/Dutch/... sites to them/you?The UK's got you covered, you mean.
You don't see a lot of good reporting in actual press either. How many times have you seen a political interview where actual hardhitting questions were asked? How many journalists spend their lives reurgitating the same articles over and over again about accidents, wars, ... never questionning the manner to improve it? Even in bigger stories most journalists will get a quote of someone who is pro, someone who is against and call it a day.You don't see much good reporting, quite frankly, because many game journalists are beholden to publishers for that free game copy.
It's all in one of the first paragraphs:That Pokemon review was pretty bad, didn't really tell me much of anything. So there's a new mini game that they like more than the last one and some small new additions that the review doesn't go into detail with and that warrants a 9? Oooookay.
Everyone who has ever played a Pokémon game - whether in 1996 or 2012 - knows exactly how the game will play.
The result is that reviewing the latest addition to the family tree can easily become a box-ticking exercise.
90% of the content is not online.
As for value I don't think it's particularly expensive and "worth buying" is person specific and not a universal opinion.
There's a reason why other print mags failed and Edge is surviving and remains the gaming mag that others look up to.
The only quality that has dropped is the new size of the magazine is definitely inferior.
Great if you want to see hilariously granular ratings though. I mean, look at this shit:Eh, depends. I find most of the German magazines to be quite bad in their writing.
Hasn't Eurogamer had just as many questionable reviews as any other site out there? Maybe I'm talking out of my ass here, and will promptly shut up if so, but I vaguely recall a review for an MMO that the reviewer didn't even play, and accusations of paid reviews.
In any case, the LA Noire article was fantastic.
The Guardian is also really good as far as mainstream newspapers go.
Great if you want to see hilariously granular ratings though. I mean, look at this shit:
http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/xcom-enemy-unknown/wertung/47658.html
It's like they don't want you to read the text. IGN's got nothing on them.
Hasn't Eurogamer had just as many questionable reviews as any other site out there? Maybe I'm talking out of my ass here, and will promptly shut up if so, but I vaguely recall a review for an MMO that the reviewer didn't even play, and accusations of paid reviews.
In any case, the LA Noire article was fantastic.
Many US outlets are no different.While these pieces are good, do also keep in mind that most UK/EU sites also fail miserably at proper attribution/sourcing when it comes to news...thus making them bad at "games journalism," too.
Based on my experience, they don't attribute the proper source a lot of the time. Say, X site ran a story that got reposted on Y site, they'll attribute Y site. No idea why this happens as this is the basic when it comes to posting news and is generally taught to give the site that found the news the proper credit.
The UK's got you covered, you mean.
Thats not what I critcised. Theyre very vague about what's new. It's a poor review. A different perspective being "oh look how much fun these kids are having. Let's just say that instead giving any substance in the review". Yeah...okay.Should be enough information for anyone even half familiar with the series. The rest of the review is just to get into how huge (if young) fans feel about the new incrementation and their score is presented at the end in that context. All to avoid the situation given in the first sentence of the same paragraph:
It's basically just a way to cut the fat from a "proper" review and instead give a different perspective on the series.
But NGamer is dead. D:
RPS > Edge >>>> Eurogamer >>>>>>>>>>> anything else from anywhere.
For some reason, UK game journalism seems to be really good, we don't make many games but we must be very verbose about playing them.
You don't see a lot of good reporting in actual press either. How many times have you seen a political interview where actual hardhitting questions were asked?
Thats not what I critcised. Theyre very vague about what's new. It's a poor review. A different perspective being "oh look how much fun these kids are having. Let's just say that instead giving any substance in the review". Yeah...okay.
I don't care about the opinions of some kids who will enjoy it regardless. A good review of the game should address all the new stuff. That's not fat, that's what separates it from the latest games. How's the world tournament, is it good, is it bad, is it too difficult, is memory link integrated well, is the story better or worse than the last games, how about addressing the challenge mode and assist mode and making it known that difficulty settings are version exclusive, is it easier to transfer old pokemon, does the new content warrant a purchase, etc. But no, Pokemon is fun, here are some kids talking about sprites and how fun the games are.
10:30pm every weeknight on BBC2?
And that's being strict on 'seen'. I could happily expand it to "6-9am every weekday on Radio 4"
So one television broadcoast, one radio broadcast. So about 5% of the journalists that exist.
These games are made for everyone."This is who these games are made for. What do they think?"
People normally complain about reviews being too similar or being rehashed press releases but when someone does something different (see also: Tom Chick reviewing XCOM), the complaint is that it's not like every other review.
I think it's partially historical. British games mags have been good for a long time. People loved Zzap, Amiga Power, Super Play, Your Sinclair, and I *think* the people who worked for them in those days had actual journalistic credentials
Like Eurogamer's review of Pokemon Black/White 2 which was mainly done by the sons of 2 of the regular EG reviewers.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-10-09-pokemon-black-and-white-2-review
Hasn't Eurogamer had just as many questionable reviews as any other site out there? Maybe I'm talking out of my ass here, and will promptly shut up if so, but I vaguely recall a review for an MMO that the reviewer didn't even play, and accusations of paid reviews.