CGM: No longer "subscriber for life"?

Games
1

Several months ago I applauded the new format and overall content of Computer Games Magazine. I still do. But as time goes on I still can not get over one decision they made…specifically, no hardware requirements are listed for the games. Hardware is only discussed in the text of the review if they deem something to be “significant”.

I’ve heard their reasons: a) box requirements are meaningless; b) everyone has different perceptions of “adequate performance” c) too many different configurations to make a judgement. Sorry, I don’t buy it. I agree with a). But the rest is why I pay for the magazine - to read the judgements of professionals on the topic that they have chosen for a career. There is an entire (good) section on hardware in the magazine, but no cross-over to what’s needed to run a specific game in a review. These are not x-box or PS2 games - they are computer games - and making that kind of judgement is what I’d expect a computer games magazine to make, the same as they make judgements on gameplay or graphics or music.

I guess it’s not an issue for people who upgrade their computer every 2 years. But for the rest of us, I think it is. Enought for me where it overshadows the overall excellence of the magazine.

2

If this was an online publication I would say that it’s a totally misguided decision. Online info can still be useful years and years after it was originally written especially if it is easily accessible.

For instance, what if you see a bargain game from 1998 in the bin in 2005? It would definitely be nice to see what the reviewer thought the recommended hardware should be. I for one will definitely have an old machine sitting around in 2005.

If I’m not mistaken though, CGM is not online to any great extent.

http://www.cgonline.com/

Who really is going to go combing through 7 year old issues of CGM in the hope that they reviewed a certain game? I don’t keep magazines for more than a year, if that.

My point is that given the longevity of a paper copy of CGM I really don’t think it makes much difference.

3

But (a) was what we listed, those meaningless ones from the box. There was never a “recommended” machine, or a list of what type of machine the reviewer played it on, or any of the other bits of incidental information which may or may not still tell you how it will perform on your own machine.

Also, the “professionals” who do reviews probably have faster machines than the majority of readers because, well, they kind of have to. So unless they have an entire room full of computers like the uber-geek Tom Chick, it comes down to guessing.

making that kind of judgement is what I’d expect a computer games magazine to make, the same as they make judgements on gameplay or graphics or music.

Those are judgments based on observation, not guesswork. Unless you can test a game on a variety of machines, you’re just making stuff up.

Granted, you can make fair gueses on performance via observation, and when relevant it’s still worth mentioning whether a game is a particularly pig or has low requirements, but you can’t test a game with 256MB, 512MB, and 1GB, with NVIDIA and ATI hardware of the DX9 or DX8 variety, and a range of processors.

In general, I’m fairly opposed to most kinds of speculation in reviews, from guessing hardware requirements to making pronouncements like “Fans of this type of game will find a lot to like,” or the old crowd favorite “Once this has been patched, it’ll be brilliant.” (Closely followed by, “Wait until the mod makers get hold of this one.”)

4

I’d bet places that do give minimum and reccomended specs are just using what the publisher puts on the side of the box.

5

Perhaps listing what kind of machine the reviewer was running would help some. That might be a happy compromise.

(Although, I’m not certain that they don’t do this…Can’t seem to remember.)

6

The reason you didn’t list (and the most important one, I think) is that the information is already listed on the game box. I never saw much point in repeating it in the review. Even if the information is accurate or useful (which it rarely is), it’s redundant.

7

But (a) was what we listed, those meaningless ones from the box. There was never a “recommended” machine, or a list of what type of machine the reviewer played it on, or any of the other bits of incidental information which may or may not still tell you how it will perform on your own machine.

Also, the “professionals” who do reviews probably have faster machines than the majority of readers because, well, they kind of have to. So unless they have an entire room full of computers like the uber-geek Tom Chick, it comes down to guessing.

making that kind of judgement is what I’d expect a computer games magazine to make, the same as they make judgements on gameplay or graphics or music.

Those are judgments based on observation, not guesswork. Unless you can test a game on a variety of machines, you’re just making stuff up.

Granted, you can make fair gueses on performance via observation, and when relevant it’s still worth mentioning whether a game is a particularly pig or has low requirements, but you can’t test a game with 256MB, 512MB, and 1GB, with NVIDIA and ATI hardware of the DX9 or DX8 variety, and a range of processors.

In general, I’m fairly opposed to most kinds of speculation in reviews, from guessing hardware requirements to making pronouncements like “Fans of this type of game will find a lot to like,” or the old crowd favorite “Once this has been patched, it’ll be brilliant.” (Closely followed by, “Wait until the mod makers get hold of this one.”)[/quote]

Why not play everything on the min specs then? The people trying to get consumers to buy it are saying it works on that hardware, may as well review it on that- right?

might make them take a harder look at what they are claiming it can be played on too… I know I know, it’s impossible to expect a mag to do that.

8

Basically, yes. You’d either have to have the equivalent of an in-house compatibility testing facility, with a huge array of machines set up to all sorts of different specs, or build a custom machine for each review (to match the system requirements). Both of those options involve doing all reviews in-house, however, which no publication can do (at least not if you want comprehensive reviews). Alternately, you’d have to find freelancers with the appropriate hardware for each game, which would be equally tough (since most freelancers, as Steve says, are hardcore gamers and have hardcore systems).

9

Why not play everything on the min specs then? The people trying to get consumers to buy it are saying it works on that hardware, may as well review it on that- right?

Because to get games to play on the min-specs you often have to dial down a lot of visual detail. Then you won’t get an accurate description of the game’s graphics. If readers had to choose whether to have info on how a game runs at the minimum vice how the graphics look I’m willing to bet the majority will vote for graphics.

10

What about doing something like listing the box specs (which are meaningless) and the reviewer’s machine’s specs? That at least gives the reader a baseline for what the publisher recommends (again, not very useful) and an idea of what the reviewer was running (which may provide a ruler against which the reader can compare his/her own machine and determine whether his/her gameplay experience is likely to be equivalent).

11

Also, you’d need a different machine for each game you review. What game reviewer could afford to do that?

12

Also, you’d need a different machine for each game you review. What game reviewer could afford to do that?

Tom Ham.

13

Er, cost wise I could do that and I’m far from rich. Anyone who upgrades yearly could pull that off… which would be all harcore gamers, right? I have computers as freakin’ endtables that still meet min., reqs for current games.

Magazines toss out their outdated rigs?

The graphics needing to be turned down… well, thats what the pubs putting the min. requirments on the box expect the purchasers of their game to see, right? hehe.

I think the min. requirements on the box should have to be whatever they used to produce the back of the box screenshots.

Also no more photoshopped frame buffer grabs for console game box shots!

…and then I wake up.

14

Yer nuts. No one could possibly have what it takes to test all the minimum configurations possible for games. As far as I’m concerned, unless the reviewer has trouble with the game on a system ABOVE the minimum requirement, there’s no need to mention the requirements. Why the hell should we waste space on stuff you can read right off the box?

Half the problem with most game reviews is the focus on technical aspects over description and evaluation of actual gameplay anyway. Present company on these boards for the most part are not these kinds of reviewers but when I read many reviews around the web I wonder if they were playing the game or if they were sitting around critiquing the technical aspects while watching it go through attract mode.

I realize people want us to talk about how good a game looks and/or sounds. But really, screenshots cover the looks part pretty damn well and Lord knows there are enough of them on the web that you can practically play the entire game through a slideshow. Tribes 2 anyone?

I would much rather a reviewer explain the gameplay and give the yays or nays as he goes through that aspect of it. Give me one paragraph at most about how something looks or sounds. In fact, if you’re going to talk about looks, talk about animation and things that actually affect the gameplay, not the use of every buzzword of graphics cards. I believe everyone when they claim to be super nerdman and know what all the buzzwords mean. I don’t need you to show off in your review.

I could go on for days. Hundreds of machines to meet minimum requirements… give me a break.

–Dave

15

I didn’t even realize that they were missing! I thought most mags just copied the requirements off the game box anyway?

16

That’d be fair, but what about the people that have a higher-end system? You’re not serving their needs by reviewing everything on a Pentium 800 with 128MB of RAM.

Besides, who’s more likely to be buying games right now, a person with that three-year old system or something that just bought a 3GHz P4 with a Radeon 9800? If you believe the industry’s numbers, people with new machines buy way more software.

17

We give them away to a local charity. We had a dozen Pentium II 350s, now we’ll be giving away a dozen Pentium 800s.

But really, you’d need systems with every processor, RAM, and videocard combo to truly test all minimum requirements.

I think the min. requirements on the box should have to be whatever they used to produce the back of the box screenshots.

That assumes that everyone has the minimum requirements. How is that screenshot useful for the person with the recommended machine?

Look, I think everyone’s sympathetic to people with lower-end machines… well, at least they are until they upgrade their own box, at which point they shift to, “No games take advantage of my DX9 card” mode. But if you do everything for people on the bottom-end, you do that at the expense of everyone on the high-end. You’re sort of doomed either way. All you can hope is that people with low-end machines are thinking about upgrading (hence the hardware section), and that the folks with high-end machines will play games for the next couple of years or so.

18

WHOA! I could set up an entire 1998/1999 era lan party store with those machines! Don’t give those to charity! The nostalgia impaired need them!

19

Well, wow, I wasn’t even aware this was an issue. I must admit though that I’m always appreciate when somewhere around the review, online or otherwise, minimum specs are listed. It can be awfully hard to find them. A good lot of publishers don’t even list them on the game’s webpage (if the game even has one any more) and I often have to go on a wild goose chase to find them. When there’s no demo, it gets even worse.

The reason it matters, is, of course, because barring a year-long wait for the translation and a bump in price of about the equivalent the $30 (not to mention the high rate of awful translations), the only other option is to import it somehow and the shipping rates are scary for a place like Japan. Its really disappointing to go through all the trouble when the thing ends up not working on your computer. (Deus Ex and Grim Fandango, fine, Anachronox and ToEE? Nope.)

I realize, of course, that one can’t orient these things to international readership that includes “sent to him from his dad” and probably accounts for less than 1%. Its such a drag though, seeing as how I love thousands of kilometers away from the nearest box to flip over.

-Kitsune

20

No amount of system requirements or info will tell you if a game will work on your computer.