Jump to content

Talk:Game Informer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Journalistic Integrity / Subjectivity in "news"

[edit]

Despite the instance happening on a single topic, it has spread for a course of several months about something many agree is extremely important. Irrespective of how people view the magazine or the credibility of the website, I'd like to introduce the idea of fairly displaying the magazine and website controversies - specifically journalistic integrity, and perhaps just list it in a "controversies" subsection on the game informer wiki page.

The instances are listed by members of their site here:

http://gameinformer.com/blogs/members/b/ejronin_blog1/archive/2010/10/31/i-see-what-you-did-there-an-open-letter-to-the-game-informer-staff-and-editors.aspx

To be clear, while I am the author of that open letter, this is not the article or blog that I'll cite in the content of the section, but rather 4 of the articles verified as misleading and presented out of context. The purpose of linking it in the talk section here is to express forthrightness.

Staff has yet to address the issue and other members claim to have written the editors challenging bias and misreporting facts with no response or corrections made. Skgordon (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added "controversies" section, outlining the questionable objectivity to items reported as news. The reason being 'news' denotes items containing fact, presented in an unbiased manner, and free from yellow journalism. Whether readers expect it or if it a norm in "American society" is irrelevant. Facts do not succumb to opinion.Skgordon (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the "Controversies" entry you created for the following reasons. I read the blog you posted from "members of their site" -- the author is Shawn Gordon, which is you, and the fact that you are the only source for these supposed "controversies" violates WP:COS. The examples you cite in your blog post are also largely subjective in nature, and contain no hard evidence of wrongdoing or the deliberate intent of Game Informer's editors to mislead readers. The Wikipedia entry you created cited "articles accused" of unethical journalism -- again accused solely by you -- but no description is given for what is wrong with these articles, and again no evidence of potential wrongdoing is cited. Wikipedia is a place used to collect and share facts, not opinions -- the fact that you state you created the entry to outline "questionable objectivity" suggests that your accusations are subjective in nature; otherwise they wouldn't be questionable. Furthermore, while I personally agree with your standards of journalism and what constitutes the label of "news", the fact remains that being a private website and magazine, the staff of Game Informer have the right to include statements of opinion in their reporting, and still call it news or whatever other label they deem fit, whether you (or I) agree that it meets our personal standards for journalistic integrity. In short, Wikipedia has a higher standard for reporting than Game Informer might, and entries here should not contain unsupported accusations, subjective statements, or personal opinions. I don't know what the staff of Game Informer did to upset you, but don't use Wikipedia to air your personal grievances. That's what blogs (like the one you posted above) are for.Staronson (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may unfairly imply I was hiding behind something. I didn't cite my own blog in the entry because personal blogs are not acceptable citation or solid sources. I presented it in the 'talk' section for reference. I know it was me, I didn't hide it. "Members" is factual. One member (me) wrote the blog - yes and I don't deny that nor would I, but other members either agree or made additional claims in the comments to that blog. I retain it as 'fair' to say 'some members'. If you're implying that I was attacking or "pouncing from the shadows," please just come forward with that and make that claim so that the matter can be cleared up.
"the fact that you state you created the entry to outline "questionable objectivity" suggests that your accusations are subjective in nature; otherwise they wouldn't be questionable."
Suggestive is not subjective, and 'talk' is merely my reason outline, not how it is presented in the entry. The entry itself was factual, referenced and cited, and entailed only the 'news' items proven to be misleading. I have no way of knowing if you read the entry, but I do not have a strong impression that you read and looked at the citations before deletion.
I believe a WP:COS violation is, in this sense, required since citing myself would create a WP:COI, and it is easily verifiable that more than myself make accusations against GI staff across the web and within the site. However, addition of a list of people, sites and claims by just me would appear as a smear campaign, right? I reference the blog in "talk" to provide clarity but it in no way presents itself in the actual entry. I wonder if you read the entry itself prior to deletion because in your reason for deletion you do not reference the section, only the "talk" as a means of justification for removal. If this is incorrect, prior to removal you should let someone know or ask. I understand that there's no way to know if I'll respond back, but at least 24 hours or a stronger consensus should have occurred. Also, I'm uncertain if you truly went through the comments to determine your conclusions. Regardless, the articles and the original sources, and secondary sources were enough to verify poor quality.
I don't dispute that GI may retain right to do as they please in context to tag methodology, but what people universally expect and get from other magazines doesn't adjust because GI does it different. Stating faulty methods in contrast to the level of importance they claim and in reference to the standards they claim is not my way gaming the system for some kind of vendetta. They didn't "do" anything "to" me. I have had a rather pleasant relationship with a few of the staff in the limited personal communications I have had with them, albeit that was months ago in idle chit-chat.
I still believe, and retain that a "controversies" section should be presented on items I originally presented because I see no reason to not include this into factual events about the magazine and staff. Now, in no way do I imply any disrespect, but given that you have no user page, how am I to know you are not affiliated with the staff or a former editor thereby making removal of the section a WP:COI? I'm considering replacing the section, but would prefer to seek advice on proper methods to fit within the wiki guidelines. Again, of course, only in good faith. Skgordon (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please know that I did carefully read your Wikipedia entry, as well as your blog post and the comments that were posted there. I did not delete the entry because of what you listed in this talk section, but merely cited it to point out that the claims made in your wikipedia entry were not hard facts, but merely your own assertions that questionable reporting may be occurring. I did not mean to imply that you are jumping from the shadows, but you are reporting a controversy that you are the main advocate of, and a few comments from anonymous users on a blog post does not constitute secondary evidence -- if that was the standard, then you could create a controversy entry for every GI review that more than one commenter has complained about.

I still assert that the "articles accused" section of the entry you created contained no explanation of why those articles were being listed, and you didn't cite any evidence that shows GI staff members have intentionally misled readers. You cannot simply cite the original article and their source material and expect Wiki users to interpret the differences in the same way you do. A valid piece of evidence would be a published article that calls out and proves inappropriate reporting from GI, which I have not seen as of this time. This talk section has an entry regarding the magazine's scoring for Paper Mario, which has much more evidence of a controversy (a Jive article which now appears to be defunct), and users here are still debating whether it is worthy of being included. Your main contention for your own entry is still that by labeling entries on their site as news, GI is somehow required to live up to your personal standard for what constitutes as journalism, which you say is universally expected: Compare their tone to the reporting done on any other video game news website, and I think you'll find they meet what is universally expected, if not by your own admission, exceed it.

I apologize for my final remark regarding using Wikipedia to air personal grievances, which was an assumption on my part. I now believe that you are just a reader of their site with a very high standard for journalistic integrity. However, you cannot demand that GI conforms to your personal standards, and claiming that there's a controversy based on your own complaint, backed only by a handful of anonymous sympathetic comments (while ignoring the comments that disagree with your claims) does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. I shouldn't have made an assumption about your motives; don't undermine your own argument by making false WP:COI accusations against me. I do not work for GI, nor am I particularly a fan of their site or magazine. I am, however, a fan of Wikipedia, and believe entries here should be based solely on objective facts. When you have credible, published evidence of wrongdoing, then we can have this conversation again. Until then, we should focus on fleshing out the rest of the Wiki page with information that we have legitimate source material for.Staronson (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The actual Mag

[edit]

I don't really have time to do it (I'm not even registered here), but I think more information should be posted about the actual magazine rather than the web page, such as all of the editors, the games that received 10s, sections of the magazine (GI Classic, Game Infarcer, etc.)

Just my suggestion

--Casey

Paper Mario

[edit]

I don't have time right now to write this up, but...

I was thinking that perhaps something about the famous "Paper Mario" controversy and the "Gaming public" (which was later taken back) scandal should be posted here. It was a monumental event and many people took it very seriously. What do you think?

Amphax 01:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


i know about the paper mario thing...but what was the "gaming public" controversy? -DF

A link is here:

http://www.jivemagazine.com/column.php?pid=2589&PHPSESSID=5d0681eb10ecbf91718844d2e02c0fd2 [warning, it uses the 'BS' word in it, I don't particularly care for profanity myself, but all in all its a pretty well written article]

You'll get the full quote from that article, here's the part I was talking about:

Remember, we aren't scoring games strictly on our personal opinions, we're also scoring them based on how much we think THE GAMING PUBLIC will like them.

He later recanted this statement, but it sent shockwaves throughout the Internet (just Google "GAMING PUBLIC" "Game Informer" to see what I mean). What do you think, worth a write up?

Amphax 21:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A write up would be good. But it should be more then just the controversys. -DF

pictures

[edit]

Someone please put up the monthly cover issue of gaminformer in a pic. EGM does, so does gamepro

I used the March 2006 cover from their website.-Egore- 20:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mario Controversy

[edit]

Okay, it seems like a writeup would be good. I'll try to remember to get around to it sometime. Like I mentioned earlier, Google is a good resource, and that Jive Magazine link is a rather analytical source, we just have to be careful to have a netural POV.

It should also be noted that many other outlets gave Paper Mario a very high score, so for GI to give it a low score and then make the claims that it did was unusual.

Amphax 23:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Here's a link to a copy of the original post... http://gamecritics.com/forums/showthread.php?mode=hybrid&t=8497

That page includes a posting of Andy's response, which was originally posted here... http://www.ga-forum.com/printthread.php?t=18453&page=3&pp=100 (search for Hemmdog)

By the way, I like the idea you're going with at the end of the page so far, but I think it could use a little more linguistic tweaking, to make it more Wiki-ish. Also, at least one other example should be provided (like the fake Newbie Cheat Sheet entry in every issue). -- TheInvisMan, 04:55 PM EST, February 19, 2006

To the Wacko put the smarmy comment about the forums know this: it has been deleted. Jim Jimson 01:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to Jim who got rid of my comments, know this: its back, and every time you delete it, i will put it back.

I don't see how mention of the Paper Mario "controversy" contributes to the content of the article, personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.52.216 (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see it two ways - it adds, in that it properly denotes lack of objectivity. Whether or not people expect subjective output from a gaming mag, a degree of objectivity is expected by the journalistic community. In short, it holds them to a higher standard than expected, but that's how it works. To be the top, you have to act it.

Second, it may come off as 'dogging' them, which subjectively appears bad in context to wikipedia -

so - is it more important to present factual information in an unbiased format or to tell people what you think they want to hear? I vote for the former. Skgordon (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stop getting rid of my comment

[edit]

You don't understand, every time you get rid of my comment "Unfortunately a lot of the moderators take the job way to seriously and end up ruining an otherwise great forum." I will simply just put it back, so dont bother.

I think the problem with this is that it is your opinion, not a fact. Greg Birdsall 14:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Giving that one of the key tenets at WP is remaining on topic, I suggest that you lump your criticism in with some legitimate comments to avoid a ban or removal of commments. The Game Informer article is hardly the place to campaign for site change :).67.177.49.13 (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"objectiveness"

[edit]

"Because Game Informer is still owned by the GameStop Corp., the magazine is featured prominently at GameStop store locations. For this same reason the objectiveness of the magazine should be taken into account."
What is the logic behind this statement, exactly? How does the affiliation with a major retail chain imply a journalistic bias of the magazine, towards a company like Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft, or towards any other game publisher/developer?
Also, "objectiveness" should be changed to "objectivity" - it's a much better word, I think.
TheInvisMan 15:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because their parent company makes its money by selling video games, and they are a magizine that reviews video games. If they rate a game a higher score than it may deserve, their parent corporation may sell more copies of that title. There is no proof of course, as reviews are an inherintly subjective process, but the temptation is still there. While the argument that any magazine that makes its money from advertising can be subject to the same scrutiny, others, such as EGM, have actually lost advertisers from negative reviews and have stood by their poilcy as such. Game Informer has the oppurtunity for more bias for giving games good reviews as their parent company makes its money off of the sales of games instead of the advertising of the game companies. Greg Birdsall 18:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's BS. GI have ALWAYS rates Mario Party games poorly, despite how well they are known to sell. It's POV as well, and so I changed it. I'd like to remove the entire objectivity piece, but I'm a fair guy.Fiction Alchemist 15:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't have anything to say about Paper Mario at all - you always have to take objectivity into account when dealing with any company, but moreso when the company directly makes profits from the products they are reviewing. Greg Birdsall 15:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about Paper Mario? =) Anyway... I was merely stating that the allegations that GI may be biased because of their owners is a theory without any evidence behind it. I agree that one must keep an eye open for bias as you mention, but GI have not shown any evidence of this bias. Fiction Alchemist 22:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I typed the wrong game name in, but I didn't say anything about Mario Party either. What evidence are you speaking of? The fact that they are owned by Gamestop/EB is a fact. I think we are talking about two different thing, I'm not saying they are biased against one system or company, or that they consistantly rate one series lower than anything else, I am stating that they have a finanicial interest in rating games higher than average. Wheather or not they do this is a hard fact to prove, as all evidence is subjective, but you must still take into account they they are owned by a company which makes its money selling the very games they review. Greg Birdsall 14:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and I agreed with all of that; you are right. Sorry if what I said was confusing or poorly written. I'm merely trying to say: Innocent until proven guilty, and GI hasn't even had any evidence against them. :) Fiction Alchemist 15:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to beg to differ with the no bias statement. I have noticed ove rthe past several months that Game Informer has a strong Sony bias. For what reason, I don't know but serveral articles have been more than evidence for me. If you need an example, see the article "The Calm Before the Storm" on page 40 of the December issue of game informer. Sithguy 17:35, 27 November (UTC)
And your proof is what? In a recent issue, GI rated WII as a better system than the PS3 in an objective review. Was that Sony bias? Will you shift to saying it is a Nintendo bias now? Fiction Alchemist 13:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you this, Game Informer did mark Mario Party 6 or 7 down to a 2 in one issue, no obvious reason was given other than the writer didn't like that the series had been around for as long as it had.
         Game informer online has some thing called replay were they replay old games that they have revied the record the conversations of the players and videotape the gameplay. on one such ocasion they played mario party only one of the four partisipating players liked the game. they even had the reviewer of the recent mario party 7. he stated that he hates the mario party games because they are based purly on luck and that the game last long too long he akined it to the main flaws of monopoly. all the boards are almost exactly the same and the game trys to make the round last even longer with chance events that can uterly destroy some player even if they are in the lead. he does not like it because it is too given up to chance and too repetitive with the same things in all seven versions of the game.the review in the magazine is a shortend version of the full review the full review is on the website.--from anon  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.5.72.7 (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say, as a GameStop employee, that we do more in-store advertising for games that GI rates highly. For example, when God of War was given a 10, GameStop sent the stores marketing kits featuring small signs to attach to the shelves showing what GI gave God of War. GameStop has done that with many games since then. It doesn't make it a definite bias, but we don't show what other gaming mags have said about a game. Also, don't forget that GameStop offers the Edge card free with a subscription to GameInformer magazine, and that you can't get the Edge card without the subscription. Alabasterchinchilla 04:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Two thing, one objectivity is much better because before the word could have been confused with the Ayn Rand philosophy.Two GI is ussually clear of any bias, however i did feel they were slightly bias against Sony when they talked about the launch. I'm a 360 gamer and I completly agree with them, but I'm biased75.121.36.237 (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099[reply]

The article needs citations.

[edit]

There are none, and it needs some.One Star Bandit 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few - for the "citation needed" and then some.
TheInvisMan 13:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former Editor Updating

[edit]

Hey, guys. I recently stumbled across this page. As a former editor at Game Informer (and employee of Funcoland), my obsessive nature spurred me to tweak a few things and expand on several others. I may continue with more insights/additions, or I may just leave it as is.

I see a lot of baseless opinions either included, or at war to be included. Why not just stick with the facts? There's plenty of things that could be added instead: games receiving 10s, the tenure of current editors, a bit on Game Infarcer, etc. Thanks. ViolentLee 03:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless opinions? Like what? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Baseless opinions like how everyone is in an uproar because they gave Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door a mediocre score and people think it is one of the greatest Mario games ever. Oh, and someone should post all the games that have ever recieved 10's and maybe the Bottom 10 (the 10 games that have gotten the worst scores in the history of the magazine).
Baseless opinions? We KNOW that there was controversy over the score. No one said in the article that TTYD was the greatest Mario game ever. The TTYD situation was solely about how the reviewer told everyone that he scored the game inappropriately to appeal to the gamers instead of give it a proper score. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was speaking more about the opinions that Game Informer reported incorrect information, or how they didn't have credibility until recent years. Stuff like that, which has not been proven, has no place in what is supposed to be a page of facts. ViolentLee 20:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just so you know, it's bad form for an editor or former editor of a magazine to contribute to the edits of the article (as you may be biased one way or the other). However, that would only deal with POV, and only if you're being bold about it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have only updated facts here -- and added some things the normal reader may not know about. Y'know, cuz I was there and stuff. I'm not here to dish out opinions; unlike some people who tried editing this page, I know Wikipedia is not the place for subjective entries. If you think it's bad form for me to add a few things to here, that's your problem not mine. Check my contributions; I'm sure you'll see it's all kosher. ViolentLee 23:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copout. I neither work there now, nor am I affiliated with a competitor. Not letting people who actually KNOW a subject edit the page is why there are so many factual inaccuracies on Wikipedia pages (for example, my pro wrestler friends' ages and real names being wrong). Again, prove that I was anything other than totally accurate in anything I wrote. Ya can't do it, cowboy. You could've been spending your time actually updating the page with some of my above suggestions. Instead, you'd rather get into a pissing match with someone with an intimate knowledge of the magazine. Golf clap on that one. ViolentLee 18:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do a great job of making it seem like I care about competing with you. The fact that you were once an editor of the magazine is against guidelines. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vague comments like that aren't making me feel any guiltier. In fact, reading the entire page you so kindly linked showed a few interesting notes that support me:
"There is no list of criteria to help editors determine what counts as a conflict of interest. In most cases, the intention of the writer can be deduced from the tone and content of the article. If you do write an article on a little-known subject, or on one in which you are involved in some way, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, published sources."
All my edits were in a neutral tone and cited sources.
"You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether or not your citation is an appropriate one, and defer to the community's opinion."
I was quite careful, thank you Wikipedia. I was a reliable source because I was there to know how and what things happened. I would never dream of saying either, "Game Informer rules!" or, "Game Informer drools!" I am merely helping to add as much relevant, factual information to the page with ZERO personal slant. I hope I have dissuaded you from further concern. ViolentLee 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cute. Selectively picking stuff out of the guideline. "In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a clear conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged." Nice that you ignored that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ignore it; that backs up my case all the more! There is no "clear conflict of interest" here, as I'm a former employee 3 years removed -- I didn't see any mention of past employees -- and living thousands of miles away. Also, I kept the neutral point of view that Wikipedia strives to uphold. But if it makes you feel better, I will consider myself "discouraged" -- by you, O Wise Wiki Watchdog. You'd think someone who spends more time on Wikipedia than most people do at their jobs would bring up better arguments. Or, perhaps they'd actually spend time updating pages instead of getting into pointless debates. This is the equivalent of calling 911 because someone took a penny from the "take-a-penny" tray. I edited a topic I have intimate knowledge of, and did so in a professional manner. You can't prove otherwise, so I'm done listening to your broken record. Do us all a favor and go back to talking about Super Princess Peach. ViolentLee 10:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could you come off as more of a complainer than you are now? You seem so horrified that I dare bring up a Wikipedia guideline. If this is how you react towards such a thing, you should not be on Wikipedia. I pointed out a simple guideline - stating that there may be a problem with you editing it because you have a connection to the magazine. And even though I never accused you of violating this policy and even stated that if you do not involve yourself with pov-related disputes or be bold on big things in the article, you should be fine, you take offense and eventually go on a tirade because I hurt your feelings. So, how exactly do children manage to get a job at Game Informer nowadays? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes, policies are not set in stone. "A Link to the Past", please consider this before you object so strongly. Teh Rote (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Link To the Past, could you come off as more of a dick than you are now? 71.244.136.209 (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't WP:COS apply to this? Alec92 (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game Informer back issues

[edit]

I need a bit of a favor. Does anyone have access to back issues of Game Informer? Specifically, the January 2006 issue? I'm trying to whip Radiata Stories into shape (I know, a long way to go yet) but I threw away my old issues and want a proper citation in the Reception/Criticism section. Any help would be much appreciated. Chevinki 00:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nm. Found where to go. Chevinki 06:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There's a number in every issue that you can call to order back issues. It's on the copyright page, real tiny, but there.75.121.36.237 (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099[reply]

make sense does not

[edit]

this sentance does't make sense (a least to my just-woken-up brain) "Due to this, it is promoted in large part in-store, which has contributed heavily to its large subscription base." 218.186.9.1 23:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done ∆ Algonquin 06:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Death of Paul Anderson

[edit]

How come no one has ever heard of the news of death of GI-Paul? It should be created. Professional Gamer 00:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a memorial page. It said it was from ALS or parkinsons, I'm not sure which. Paul, you'll be missed-RIP.75.121.36.237 (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099[reply]

Game Informer Online

[edit]

Does anyone know if the reviews published on Game Informer Online are the same as those in the magazine? --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are. At least the scores are the same

Skgordon (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photiphile

[edit]

WTF happened to Photiphile:Big pictures with miny previws. It was there one month and then it just disappeared.75.121.36.237 (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099[reply]

Image change for each month

[edit]

The cover issue should be changed every month. That just would seem to make the article much better.Gears Of War 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please update the magazine image. King Rock (Gears of War) 18:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GI's Review for MotorStorm: Pacific Rift changes by TPD

[edit]

Here is the main source for the site and knows why: [1] 70.45.182.188 (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing System

[edit]

I noticed while reading the reviewing section that nothing is mentioned about the Second Opinion section of the review, for Example, in the February 2009 Issue, they listed the top 50 games of 2008, and GTA IV got Game of the Year Award, because it got 20/20 (Perfect 10 from the main review, Perfect 10 from the Second Opinion) Whereas Metal Gear Solid 4 got 19.75/20 (10 From Main, 9/75 from the Second Opinion) So I think we should mention the Second Opinion, and then change the list of "Games that received Perfect Tens" so that it only lists games that received 20/20 and then maybe a list of Games that almost got 20/20. There is something similar to this on the Gamespot page. It's just an idea. Alec92 (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should mention the second opinions, but the twenty-point scale theory is original research because GI never said anything about ranking games based on the sum of the two scores. -sesuPRIME 04:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do when determining the Game of The Year, as pointed out in Issue 191 in the DearGI section,

Every Year we get a few letters like this, and the explanation is pretty simple. You can stack the numbers however you want, but Grand Theft Auto IV scored a 10 in the main review and a 10 in the second opinion. A the highest scoring game of 2008, it was awarded Game of the Year. - Quote from DearGI section in Issue 191 in regards to "The Numbers Guy" question.

But yes, you are correct about them not scoring from the sum of said scores. I understand that if we were to begin listing scores from Game Informer as Primary and Secondary we'd have to overhaul all the review tables that have ever listed Game Informer reviews, I'm not for that, but just so that the casual Wiki User understands how Game Informer reviews games Alec92 (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; I had forgotten about their response to that letter. -sesuPRIME 05:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Problem. Alec92 (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The lead of this article currently has a list of benefits that subscribers of the magazine receive, and reads as if it was copy/pasted from a press release. The benefits should be briefly summarized in the lead, and possibly explained in more depth in its own section. — RockMFR 23:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add books?

[edit]

For those who don't know, two Game Informer editors have released books (Kill Screen by Ben Reeves, and Air Force Gator by Dan Ryckert), albeit exclusively on Amazon. I was wondering if we should add them to other media, or do something else with them. 50.11.77.226 (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The books aren't connected to Game Informer; their authors happen to work for the magazine, that's all. If we someday see a Game Informer Guide to the Xbox 720, or books from Game Informer Press, that'd be different. Ylee (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Game Informer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Game Informer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on Game Informer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tables/Games of the Year Awards

[edit]

I'm going to make the tables a fixed width and make the awards consistent in order between each table. Also, I'm going to manually buy each February (and January when necessary) edition to fill them all, but it's going to take some time. If anyone knows a way to find all the awards with a link, that would be great. I've tried looking and can't find anything. Psychotic Spartan 123 14:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Game Informer tables

[edit]

Moved from my talk page:

I agree the tables aren't really necessary (and I never got around to finishing them), but I'm not sure what you mean by "missing RS talking about these awards in the third person, so it's WP:WEIGHTy to include them". My question: what does RS mean? SpartaN (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@SpartaN: Reliable sources. Basically, if some content doesn't have reliable, independent sources talking about it, it probably shouldn't be written about on Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
You're right. Citing Game Informer about Game Informer is poor sourcing. I feel stupid not being able to deduce "RS" as "reliable sources". Cheers! SpartaN (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@SpartaN: No worries. I've had other, unfortunate, conversations recently. --Izno (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

--Izno (talk) 02:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Game Informer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Game_Informer&oldid=1194835202"