From: rjung@aludra.usc.edu (Robert A. Jung)
Newsgroups: rec.games.video
Subject: Re: EGM is a good mag
Date: 6 Apr 1992 19:53:35 -0700
Organization: Southern California Lynx Enthusiasts
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

In article <679@sandia.UUCP> sandia!marms@unmvax.unm.edu (Mike Arms) writes:
>rjung@aludra.usc.edu (Robert A. Jung) writes:
>>rauser@fraser.sfu.ca (Richard John Rauser) writes:
>>> (lots of flames at EGM deleted)
>> (lots of flames at Richard deleted)
>
>Ok, Robert.  Take a break.  Try not to take things to such a personal level.

  Actually, I think I kept it straight for (at least) the first half of the
message. I know I lost it near the end,  B-)  But I didn't go completely
ballistic.

>EGM does give us glimpses at what games are coming or at least being 
>worked on (some never make it out).  I appreciate the info on Japanese
>carts that may never make it to the US so that I have some data when
>I am looking at MegaDrive or Super Famicon carts (I am into anime and
>manga).  The photos and screen shots are good.  The information is
>more timely (i.e. CES info is out in more detail and usually earlier
>than other mags).

  I agree with the photos, the Japanese news, and the timeliness of the
information. I do find it very annoying, though, that in its apparent rush
to be timely, EGM will take the first things it gets and plaster it as fact.
The other magazines are usually a month behind, but when I read something in
them, I feel more confident that it's accurate.

  Quick case in point -- EGM did a preview of THE GUARDIANS: STORM OVER DORIA
in the March '92 issue, as well as a review in the April issue. One would get
the impression that they were working from the final product, especially since
the preview had "% Complete: 100%" on it. The chief programmer on THE
GUARDIANS project, however, has stated (in rec.games.video) that the version
seen by EGM was only half-finished, at best. How much of what EGM reported
will be invalid when the final product hits the stores?

>The downsides: Their reviews are fairly pathetic.  I gain very little
>info from their 2-3 line review and rating.  And some of the clowns
>down-rating based on computer ports or up-rating just because it is
>another shooter with cool graphics, lots of power-ups, and huge bosses
>is very bad.

  Agreed again. Maybe my bias is showing, but I cringe whenever I read a
review along the lines of "I didn't like the original version, so I don't
like this and I'll give it a '3'". My feeling is that people who are anti-
shooters should not review shooters, people who are anti-horror movies should
not review horror movies, and so on.

>I don't mind the rumors.  I find them mildly interesting, but it is sort
>of a fan-boy thing.  Treat most of the rumors as vaporware.  True, some
>will come true, but a lot is just smoke.

  The trick is to stick a large "Take with a grain of salt" in front of
all of the rumors -- which would mean writing it in large red letters on
the cover of each issue.  B-)

>>  Those of you who want to be responsible consumers and get factual
>>information should avoid EGM like the plague. Flip through it for the neat
>>photos of new games, but (to save your soul) DON'T READ A WORD.
>
>No, I am a responsible consumer.  I get information from a large number
>of sources.  EGM is, to me, a necessary source of good but somewhat biased
>information on new video games.

  The trick is to not rely on EGM as your only source; I alluded to that as
much in my original post (note that I never said "Don't read EGM", but rather
"read it for the pictures"). In the end, I would still rather trust VG&CE or
GAMEPRO for details and facts first. Neither magazine is perfect, but they
are more careful about their information that EGM is (IMO).

>So IMHO Richard did have something worthwhile to contribute on this topic.
>That he wrapped it in another flame and took pot-shots at Lynx owners is
>unfortunate, but we have come to expect that kind of foolishness from him.
>Actually, I have read a non-inflamatory post of his recently, so maybe
>there is hope.  Nah, probably not.  But Robert, try to keep your own feet
>out of the mud.

  I try. But this !%!!$%^&*!&!&(? compiler class has been giving me so much
stress recently...

                                                --R.J.
                                                B-)

//////////////////////////////////////|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
   Send whatevers to rjung@usc.edu    |      If it has pixels, I'm for it.
--------------------------------------+------------------------------Lynx up!
"You weren't chosen because you are the best pilot in the Air Force. You were
    chosen because you are the class clown and frankly, you're expendable."