EGM EIC Shoe names names of companies who refuse to submit games for p/review

[quote name='TimPV3']Huh, they must be getting ready to release the new Mortal Kombat pretty soon then.

We shouldn't let this get out of hand though, they just didn't send in review copies, which is their right. It's not like they threatened to pull ad campaigns...

Oops.[/quote]
Well, MK:DA came out in 2002, MK:D came out in 2004, and MK:A came out in 2006. If that past history is any indication, there will be one this year. MK:DA was ok, but fuck the one fatality shit. MK:D was ok, online was decent. MK:A, ok it had a shit ton of characters which was cool, but the online was full of cheesedick assholes. I still with MK:T would be release in the Arcade or PSN

Course, the cool thing about MK:D, at least for xbox (not sure if they did it with the PS2), was the collectors edition that had the bonus disc with a full faithful port of MK1. Though, MK:A I didn't buy, my now former room mate did. He has no use for it now, after we moved out. Since he doesn't have an xbox. Guess it was a fair trade, he left his Vision camera and FFXII in my PS2, which I used the former as trade fodder. Dipshit probably doesn't even know, much less care heh
 
[quote name='HumanSnatcher']Well, MK:DA came out in 2002, MK:D came out in 2004, and MK:A came out in 2006. If that past history is any indication, there will be one this year. MK:DA was ok, but fuck the one fatality shit. MK:D was ok, online was decent. MK:A, ok it had a shit ton of characters which was cool, but the online was full of cheesedick assholes.[/QUOTE]
Ah, the beauty of auto-insert, non-WYSIWYG smilies.
 
I for one am a big fan of EGM today.

If any of you took a look into an EGM from 10 or 15 years ago, you'd agree with me. Every sentence was written like this! And they were so excited about street fighter 2! And mortal kombat blood and genesis codes and sonic! How do you like this 300 page magazine with 200 pages of ads!?!?! And here's 3 pages of blurry screenshots!

Really, childhood memories are probably obscuring your memories of old EGM. Their layout, features, and writing are better than they've ever been. Their short, conversational reviews are an excellent alternative to having to wade through a 5 page online review that reads like a consumer reports for a dishwasher. People don't pay attention to that stuff anyway.

Most of us get our reviews and impressions from other people these days, either online or in person, so why not follow that and have them give their opinions in a less formal, less "list the features" "List how many stages there are" type format?
 
I dunno... I first starting reading EGM with the Nov. 98 issue, and even going back to that, it's well-written. Every game magazine was shit back in the early 90s, but towards the late 90's they started getting more legit. I think EGM was good up until they moved over to California.
 
They did have a good amount of text at a good quality in the playstation/N64 days, I'll agree. But their reviews were about the same length, if not shorter. I'd personally like to see about a page worth of review copy for big games and smaller screenshots in general for the reviews section.

I have no problem with their writing. I do think they could hire me as a copy editor as I'm always finding typos, which is pretty bad.
 
[quote name='jollydwarf']

P.S. Ubisoft is deplorable, and that Jade Raymond comic was more than a little accurate.[/QUOTE]
Woman hater!

Anyway, I don't really care. I don't read gaming magazines anyway. I have a free subscription to EGM, and I flip through it while dropping the kids off at the pool. That's about it.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Their reviews are tripe. Always have been. It's a constraint of the magazine format - having multiple perspectives is the best they can do, but when distilled into 75 words or so, I'm not moved, ever, to make a $60 purchase, y'know?
[/QUOTE]

You know, after knocking the review text in my earlier posts, I have to admit it is getting a bit better.

Just read through the reviews in the new issue, and there wasn't much bickering with each other, stupid jokes etc. as I'd recalled in the past.

They were much better about getting to the point of why the liked, or didn't like the game. Especially in the couple longer reviews. Hopefully they've heard the criticism and this is a sign that they're taking their review text a bit more seriously.

I don't mind shorter reviews if they get to the point of giving reasons why they gave that score. Actuallly prefer them to the long ass reviews on IGN or Gamespot. I don't care enough about other's opinions to read reviews that long! :D I Just occasionally like a quick gauge of whether a game I don't know much about is worth checking out myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top