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:
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
A write up would be good. But it should be more then just the controversys. -DF
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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.
"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)
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)
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)
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 biased
75.121.36.237 (
talk) 03:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099
There are none, and it needs some. One Star Bandit 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Wouldn't WP:COS apply to this? Alec92 ( talk) 20:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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)
They are. At least the scores are the same
Skgordon ( talk) 22:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
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
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)
Here is the main source for the site and knows why: [1] 70.45.182.188 ( talk) 16:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
-- Izno ( talk) 02:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
A write up would be good. But it should be more then just the controversys. -DF
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)
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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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.
"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)
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)
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)
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 biased
75.121.36.237 (
talk) 03:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Arbiter099
There are none, and it needs some. One Star Bandit 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
Wouldn't WP:COS apply to this? Alec92 ( talk) 20:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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
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)
They are. At least the scores are the same
Skgordon ( talk) 22:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
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
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)
Here is the main source for the site and knows why: [1] 70.45.182.188 ( talk) 16:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
-- Izno ( talk) 02:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)