No Half-life 2 Review Again In Gametm?

[Robo_1]

I think GamesTM have made the right decision. If Vivendi aren't willing to play ball with review code, then I don't see why GamesTM should be made to look like an "also ran" by having to put their review out so much later than their rival magazines. The verdict is out on HL2, it doesn't really mean much at this stage in it's release if GamesTM give it a 1 or a 10, most people will have already made their mind up about the game through the numerous other reviews, I can't honestly believe there is anyone holding off purchasing this game because of no GamesTM review.

PS: This doen't mean I've forgiven them for the Galleon score

[Fireproofradiator]

Well I think this is pretty interesting... (and if you don't, maybe you could post in another forum where there is something that interests you...)

It says a lot about how the people who put together Gamestm (which I do like) view themselves and their readership. I can understand being hurt by poor treatment by a publisher/developer but it does feel a little as if the magazine is depriving both itself and it's readers by treating a tremendously important (and good) game as if it doesn't exist, in a kind of Stalinist revision-of-history stylee.

Are they not going to mention it in the retrospective 'Essentials' section for instance? Ever? That would be a bit silly.

Also, the reasons given for not reviewing it, which seem important and matter of principle now, will become less relevant as time goes by, with only the irritating gap in the magazine's coverage to show for the whole business when all's said and done a couple of years down the line. And if I worked for the magazine I'd already be getting bored with explaining the rationalisation for this, as well as irritated by the attention the decision has given to a part of the games industry that the magazine seems to have sucessfully risen above.

That's not even to reiterate the point make elsewhere that readers would like to know what GamesTM think of the game.

It's a bit odd that the audience, who, like the magazine itself, value the lineage and history of videogames beyond the day-to-day tittletattle and spats that are a part of the industry should miss out because the magazine decides to be drawn into a fight. LIke I say, this is a bit at odds with the grasp of the bigger picture that I found so appealing about the magaine.

Moreover, I think that as another poster wrote, doing a review which includes the 'history' here and takes into consideration the amount of time that's passed - perhaps looking at the modding and deathmatch content that's now beginning to appear, would be unique, interesting, and leave Gamestm looking like the good guys.

Anyway...

[Guest]

but why, the only people who miss out are their readers. why is that good ?

They don't care as long as they sell enough copy regardless, and get enough adverts?

[Moose]

didn't the reason behind the whole Team 17 thing stem from AP's review of Worms (41% or something), courtesy of Stuart Campbell? or am I getting my incidents muddled?

as much as I like Stu (and I'm not being sarcastic either, by the way) he DID completely miss the point of Worms and fuck up a lot of Team 17's good work in the process. or, again, I may have got my incedents muddled.

as for HL2, maybe they should've stated that their gaming PC isn't online and that they'd wasted £30, before giving it a zero?

Slightly OT, but: Worms was reviewed by the gentlemanly Jonathan Davies, as I recall, who (fairly, in my opinion) was unimpressed by a game that was essentially a full-price Scorched Tanks but with silly voices. The Team 17 "vendetta" was due to a few of their by and large rotten games receiving lacklustre marks in AP, while scoring 90+% in the slightly less stringent pages of the woeful Amiga Action, even though - shock! - the good Team 17 games still received good marks in AP. So they stopped sending games on the pretext of this "vendetta", AP had to go to the shops to buy them, and thus this led to the celebrated "DO NOT SHOW TO AMIGA POWER" Alien Breed 3D incident.

[strider]

but it does feel a little as if the magazine is depriving both itself and it's readers by treating a tremendously important (and good) game as if it doesn't exist, in a kind of Stalinist revision-of-history stylee.

Are they not going to mention it in the retrospective 'Essentials' section for instance? Ever? That would be a bit silly.

Of course we're not going to view the game as if it doesn't exist.

This is what has been written in the current issue under PC Essentials.

"In a word;lovely. In several words; all the waiting has finally been worth it. Good job, Valve - you've lived up to the hype."

Granted, it's not War and Peace but the magazine isn't going to act as if the game never appeared (which many here seem to be implying).

[Fireproofradiator]

(Re: above) Strider, thanks for that. I guess I'd say I was wondering rather than implying whether there'd be any mentions in 'Essentials'. But these are the kind of wonderings the magazine is opening itself up to with this stance unfortunately.

Hope the rest of my post makes some valid points though, and congrats on the magazine...

[strider]

(Re: above) Strider, thanks for that. I guess I'd say I was wondering rather than implying whether there'd be any mentions in 'Essentials'. But these are the kind of wonderings the magazine is opening itself up to with this stance unfortunately.

Hope the rest of my post makes some valid points though, and congrats on the magazine...

There is an official reason in the current issue which should hopefully satisfy our readers. It wasn't an easy decision to make but a decision had to be made and I can't see that changing any time soon (the retrospective lookback sounds like a good idea though).

[Rog]

Why didn't GamesTM get invited to Valve's lovein?

[strider]

Why didn't GamesTM get invited to Valve's lovein?

I've no idea, you'd have to ask Valve or Vivendi.

[oorbroon]

Only one person went to the love-in - Future's Jim Rossignol, who then wrote different reviews for all of their magazines. At least, that's what was said on here. So, with that in mind (Of course, I'm happy to be corrected if it isn't true), who's more foolish - Future's readers for lapping up regurgitated propaganda (badly justified Edge 10/10, IMO), or GamesTM for stepping away from the whole thing? I don't know which side to back - they've both done their readers a massive disservice, if you ask me.

[Concept]

The wise thing of couse would have been GamesTM to offer an objective no-pressure retrospective review two months down the line for their readers...

[strider]

The wise thing of couse would have been GamesTM to offer an objective no-pressure retrospective review two months down the line for their readers...

you obviously know how magazines work, perhaps you should become our next editor

[Concept]

But I'm speaking from no such position.

I'm speaking from the position of a reader. You know... one of those people who actually buy the magazine to help ensure it's on the shelves in the first place.

[Harlen Quinn]

I got a bit bored reading this thread. I don't know why Games TM haven't reviewed HL2 but as supposedly the greatest FPS ever they've really done their readership a disservice by not reviewing it, even if it meant buying a retail copy. If the persons concerned didn't supply a copy then say so but don't take it out on the readership or even the game, if the game is good then say so.

Honestly, we talk about the maturing videogame sector but when those that make/distribute/review games act like big babies then what hope have we the gamers got?

EDIT: For the record, I don't buy Games TM, I don't think it's anywhere near as good as EDGE. Imo, not in the same league even. And as for HL2, I haven't played it, yet.

[prankster101]

EDIT: For the record, I don't buy Games TM, I don't think it's anywhere near as good as EDGE. Imo, not in the same league even. And as for HL2, I haven't played it, yet.

I found this month's article on Hideo Kojima to be extremely fascinating. Although I concede the fact that GamesTM isn't as good as Edge (the writing's not as sharp), to disparage it by placing it in the same league as all the others is unfair.

GamesTM does try. Granted it's editorial content isn't of the same high quality as that enjoyed by Edge, but to deny it the recognition in denting Edge's sales in an otherwise overly crowded market is to sorely miss the point.

As an alternative precedent to the videogaming "bible", Games TM succeeds in offering an opinion which is just as viable and for this they should be commended.

A magazine for grownups...

[squirtle]

Good lord.

Do the math.

GamesTM has a readership of approx 20-25k I would imagine.

Now, out of how many of them, how many do expect to read nothing else? How many do you expect are looking forward to HL2? How many of those looking forward to HL2 are waiting for GamesTM's review before buying it?

I'd say about none.

If they're looking forward to HL2 chances are they already have it. Chances are they've read the lashingly sycophantic "this game does no wrong!" gushings in every other magazine that covers PC gaming. Chances are the amount of people waiting for one magazines opinion on a game that has been out a month already, been called game of the millenia by all and sundry already, is equal to the amount of people living on the sun.

FFS, how can you say they have done their readership a disservice. One review. One game. Is HL2 bigger than everything else? Is it? No. It's a pretty damn good FPS. And that's it. Big deal.

Sometimes things wind me up because some people blow things way out of proportion. This is one of them.

[RJames]

Good lord.

Do the math.

GamesTM has a readership of approx 20-25k I would imagine.

Now, out of how many of them, how many do expect to read nothing else? How many do you expect are looking forward to HL2? How many of those looking forward to HL2 are waiting for GamesTM's review before buying it?

I'd say about none.

If they're looking forward to HL2 chances are they already have it. Chances are they've read the lashingly sycophantic "this game does no wrong!" gushings in every other magazine that covers PC gaming. Chances are the amount of people waiting for one magazines opinion on a game that has been out a month already, been called game of the millenia by all and sundry already, is equal to the amount of people living on the sun.

FFS, how can you say they have done their readership a disservice. One review. One game. Is HL2 bigger than everything else? Is it? No. It's a pretty damn good FPS. And that's it. Big deal.

Sometimes things wind me up because some people blow things way out of proportion. This is one of them.

You're so so very wrong.

It doesn't matter how relevant it is now or not. You're completely missing the point.

I won't spell it out again as it has been done plenty in this thread.

They're being big babies and it's completely ridiculous.

[Concept]

Squirtle -

Personally, for me, that isn't the point. You could apply such an argument to people who read any multiformat magazine if the review was late. Hypothetically, if Edge is late in reviewing Wanda and the Colossus or Killer 7 by a month or two due to circumstances beyond their control, should they not bother because their readership will have already played them/read about them? And would people be in the right to be slightly baffled as to why they'd refuse coverage of a game important on the videogaming landscape?

In my opinion, it's perfectly legitmate to raise those concerns. No one is saying GamesTM is a poorer magazine for not having reviewed Half-Life 2. What I'm expressing from my own point of view, is that I'd like to read what the magazine has to say on an important videogaming development, rather than just gloss over it due to what is still a relatively small time difference from the initial reviews.

I believe most people aren't complaining because they're waiting for a review to justify their purchasing decision - They're slightly annoyed because it's a conscious oversight to a game many wanted to read GameTM's views on. Late or not.

The fact is GamesTM chose not to review an important game within the great scheme of things for 2004. It reflects negatively up to a point on the magazine's reviewing section, because a part of their coverage for the truly significant titles... well, a part of that is currently missing. In context of Half-Life 2, a few years down the line, perhaps even a few months, the perception of GamesTM on that title isn't going to be available as things stand.

I don't think it's too much to try and ask them to reconsider or think about reviewing the game during the first couple of months next year, when next to nothing of importance is released. You could even say there's been an overreaction to some of the perceived overreaction too.

It isn't about reading what we've not read before. It's about reading a review/viewpoint from a source some of us may want to hear from.

[squirtle]

Squirtle -

Personally, for me, that isn't the point. You could apply such an argument to people who read any multiformat magazine if the review was late. Hypothetically, if Edge is late in reviewing Wanda and the Colossus or Killer 7 by a month or two due to circumstances beyond their control, should they not bother because their readership will have already played them/read about them? And would people be in the right to be slightly baffled as to why they'd refuse coverage of a game important on the videogaming landscape?

In my opinion, it's perfectly legitmate to raise those concerns. No one is saying GamesTM is a poorer magazine for not having reviewed Half-Life 2. What I'm expressing from my own point of view, is that I'd like to read what the magazine has to say on an important videogaming development, rather than just gloss over it due to what is still a relatively small time difference from the initial reviews.

I believe most people aren't complaining because they're waiting for a review to justify their purchasing decision - They're slightly annoyed because it's a conscious oversight to a game many wanted to read GameTM's views on. Late or not.

The fact is GamesTM chose not to review an important game within the great scheme of things for 2004. It reflects negatively up to a point on the magazine's reviewing section, because a part of their coverage for the truly significant titles... well, a part of that is currently missing. In context of Half-Life 2, a few years down the line, perhaps even a few months, the perception of GamesTM on that title isn't going to be available as things stand.

I don't think it's too much to try and ask them to reconsider or think about reviewing the game during the first couple of months next year, when next to nothing of importance is released. You could even say there's been an overreaction to some of the perceived overreaction too.

It isn't about reading what we've not read before. It's about reading a review/viewpoint from a source some of us may want to hear from.

Ok, I can see that. To be honest, Concept, you've been one of the more saner voices in here. But read some of the other vitriol. It's nonsense. I'll never buy GamesTM again. Why? Out of all the other good stuff they write, and they must do something decent for their refusal to review this to garner such a reaction, some people would choose to deny themselves all that in the future over this seems a little ludicrous to me.

Was I pissed off that Edge never reviewed Hitman 2, one of my favourite games of last year? No. Because it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. But hey, that's Edge isn't it, they're allowed to pick and choose.

[squirtle]

You're so so very wrong.

It doesn't matter how relevant it is now or not. You're completely missing the point.

I won't spell it out again as it has been done plenty in this thread.

They're being big babies and it's completely ridiculous.

Is it a good thing, or a bad thing, for a magazine to refuse to review something if the developer wants something in return? How many reviews are now just free advertising space? You think they're being babies, fair enough. I think you're wrong on this one. But hey, disagreements never killed anyone.

[Mr Spew]

Because (according to you) it's just advertising space, lets get rid of reviews all together.

Okay?

[Boyatsea]

Listen, listen, listen.

No one is really bothered whether they review it or not. But the fact is, it is only GamesTM that lose out. Half-Life 2 already has enough gleaming reviews, and the mighty Edge 10/10, that I shouldn't think Valve or Vivendi are bothered whether they cover it or not.

The fact that it would be months late is null and void. Its still on the market now - no-one said they had to be first.

Who knows why they shunned the magazine in this way. But it is GamesTM that misses out and looks petty if they don't cover it.

[squirtle]

Because (according to you) it's just advertising space, lets get rid of reviews all together.

Okay?

Suits me. I tend to make my own opinions on games from playing them. I know myself well enough to know what i am probably gonna like from news and previews. I already stated as such in another thread somewhere else around these parts.

[kamrantaz]

Ok, I can see that. To be honest, Concept, you've been one of the more saner voices in here. But read some of the other vitriol. It's nonsense. I'll never buy GamesTM again. Why? Out of all the other good stuff they write, and they must do something decent for their refusal to review this to garner such a reaction, some people would choose to deny themselves all that in the future over this seems a little ludicrous to me.

Was I pissed off that Edge never reviewed Hitman 2, one of my favourite games of last year? No. Because it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. But hey, that's Edge isn't it, they're allowed to pick and choose.

Why are they allowed to pick and choose and not gamesTM

If they chose not to review HL2, then thats their choice. Why do you have to read the review anyway? Everyone knows its great. Whats worse is when edge give great games half page reviews (awarding them 8/10) and then give other shite none of their readers would touch 2 page reviews and awarding them 3/10.

Radiant silvergun review, im looking at you

[SomeNaiveChump]

Slightly OT, but: Worms was reviewed by the gentlemanly Jonathan Davies, as I recall, who (fairly, in my opinion) was unimpressed by a game that was essentially a full-price Scorched Tanks but with silly voices. The Team 17 "vendetta" was due to a few of their by and large rotten games receiving lacklustre marks in AP, while scoring 90+% in the slightly less stringent pages of the woeful Amiga Action, even though - shock! - the good Team 17 games still received good marks in AP. So they stopped sending games on the pretext of this "vendetta", AP had to go to the shops to buy them, and thus this led to the celebrated "DO NOT SHOW TO AMIGA POWER" Alien Breed 3D incident.

still OT, but IMO, for all their (many) crimes, Team 17 turned a very basic concept (yes, I played scorched tanks to death) into a wonderful, strategic multiplayer game which was also piss-funny. multiplayer Amiga-time was split evenly between Sensi, Dyna Blaster and Worms. and Worms 2 was even better.

[biglime]

Is this still going on?

[SomeNaiveChump]

Is this still going on?

no.

[strider]

Is this still going on?

It makes a change from the Edge is better than gamesTM banter that you normally find on here...

[biglime]

It makes a change from the Edge is better than gamesTM banter that you normally find on here...

Edge?

"Seriously Uncool."

[Harlen Quinn]

I found this month's article on Hideo Kojima to be extremely fascinating. Although I concede the fact that GamesTM isn't as good as Edge (the writing's not as sharp), to disparage it by placing it in the same league as all the others is unfair.

GamesTM does try. Granted it's editorial content isn't of the same high quality as that enjoyed by Edge, but to deny it the recognition in denting Edge's sales in an otherwise overly crowded market is to sorely miss the point.

As an alternative precedent to the videogaming "bible", Games TM succeeds in offering an opinion which is just as viable and for this they should be commended.

A magazine for grownups...

I didn't place it in the same league as the others, you did. EDGE is in a league of its own. I'll let those who give a fuck decide what leagues the rest fall into.

Games TM's sales has nothing to do with its quality, only its popularity. And I didn't fail to recognise the dent it had made in EDGE's sales because I never raised the subject, as you have, how about you check EDGE's sales figures before and since the launch of GamesTM, I think you'll find they've been fairly constant. I'm sure the publishers of EDGE would like to sell more copies but its 'highbrow' approach pretty much alienates it from the masses, their loss.

I don't know if Games TM sees itself as an alternative to EDGE or if that's just the attitude of some of its readers, I'm thinking Halo and Killzone here.

'EDGE, the magazine for the mature gamer' works for me. Anyone who considers mature only as a euphemism for old should perhaps grow up.

I haven't read one of your unfeasibly large essays but judging by the tone of your last post I'd aim for GamesTM if I were you.