Editor's blog: Editorial vs. Advertising

By Tom Bramwell Published 12 January, 2009

Final fight.

Just before Christmas, when I started blogging about how we deal with certain subjects at Eurogamer, I said: "I promise to try and deal with the thorniest ones as often as the fun ones." When it comes to the relationship between editorial and advertising, as far as the internet's concerned there's none more thorny.

Let's start with what's obvious: like more or less all of our competitors, Eurogamer is reliant on advertising money to operate. People book up space around our homepage, indexes, forums and features where they can show off to you directly. The obvious implication of this is that it would be damaging for Eurogamer as a business were our advertisers to take their money elsewhere. And with so much of our, and everybody else's, advertising based on games, it's easy for you to imagine that the prospect of upsetting game-makers is hard for us to countenance. This is the source of the traditional editorial-versus-advertising debate.

Another thing to consider is that our advertising space becomes more valuable as people visit the website in greater numbers. So it's easy, again, for you to imagine that we choose to focus on popular games, and make our headlines as dramatic as possible, in order to catch people's attention. This is well-expressed by Eurogamer contributor Kieron Gillen, who told Crispy Gamer before Christmas: "I'm worried that people running websites want to maximise their money into page impressions. And if spending the money on an indie review will get fewer page impressions than spending it on a feature comparing the frame-rate of an Xbox 360 and a PlayStation 3 game, they're going to spend it on the latter." This is the source of the other traditional editorial-versus-advertising debate.

As editor, these issues affect me differently. For instance, the question of whether or not people want to advertise with us is almost never something that I deal with directly. As Observer journalist Nick Davies writes in his entertaining book about how modern journalism is rubbish, Flat Earth News, "The closest I can get to shoring up the idea [that advertising influences editorial] is that there certainly are examples of corporations pulling their advertising in order to try to have an impact on the political or general editorial line of a media outlet - but there is a real shortage of examples of their succeeding." This rings true for me.

I can't comment on how other websites and magazines are run, but I believe my responsibility is to our readers and not the people who advertise with us. If advertisers get upset about something and it means taking a hit financially, that's the cost of doing business, and if it ever starts to threaten our livelihood, we'll have to find other ways to look after ourselves.

This leaves the second major component of the editorial-versus-advertising debate: the need to attract more readers to the site, and how we choose to do it. Pretty much the first thing I said in January 2008 when I was promoted was that we have to behave ourselves when it comes to how we choose to do it.

As you know if you read the site with any regularity, it's a mixture of subjects, some of which provoke more discussion than others. Rich Leadbetter's "Face-Off" series, where we compare the technical aspects of PS3, Xbox 360 and PC games, frequently results in hundreds of comments arguing the finer details (and is the subject of Kieron Gillen's comment above). Meanwhile, a preview of Dynasty Warriors Strikeforce may attract fewer than a dozen. If my primary motivation was "hits", the lesson would be not to bother with the latter. Then again, if my primary motivation was hits, I would have learnt that lesson in January 2008 when we previewed the nominees for the Independent Games Festival and only a few people read about them.

It's better, I think, to try and maintain a healthy balance. I focus on certain features because I know they will attract a sizable audience, but only if they're interesting or useful in the first place. Otherwise, I try and spend at least a third of our budget on things that I simply want us to cover, either for personal reasons (obscure console shmups and puzzle games!), because I think something's going to be big one day, or because someone else on the staff (or one of our readers) makes a compelling case for it. It's also partly because I'm conscious of Eurogamer's origins: We used to be last on the list. We weren't invited to the party. We just wrote about whatever we found and liked at the time.

There are worse editorial strategies than writing about what interests you. As with all things, you are the ultimate judge of whether I get this right or not. But it would be a mistake to believe that the decisions I or anyone else here make - for better or worse - are unduly influenced by advertising. If you've ever tried out on this side of the writer/reader fence, you'll know that magazines and websites that pander to advertisers have no future. So in other words, if you think something I've done is wrong, or stupid, it definitely was me being wrong or stupid!

Tom

P.S. Keep your suggestions for other topics coming, as I am rounding them up, and may do another mailbag thing for titbits before I tackle another one of these. Also, if you have further questions about editorial-versus-advertising, post them below and I'll try to get to them in the thread after hours. Cheers!

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (54) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Tomo #1 3 years ago

    Nicely and concisely put.

    Now... which adverts do I most hate... ;]

    Oh and Flat Earth News! Got it for Chrimble \o/

  • secombe #2 3 years ago

    Interesting, would be good to also know how the "disbelievers" effect you and the team, if at all. An awful lot of comments crop up about how people believe you are being paid for certain review scores, or promote games that happen to be advertised on the site extensively (or promote play.com too much). For me personally it would bother me that people are doubting my integrity, and in some ways there is a risk that you can go too far in the other direction to 'appear' neutral, when you were not actually doing anything 'wrong' in the first place.

    On the thorny issue of review scores, would it be commercial suicide to drop them entirely? Both in terms of sparking debate, and being featured on Metacritic etc. Lots of opinion on that, but would be interested to hear how that fits with revenues etc.

  • Tomo #3 3 years ago

    I think generally EG is ok for adverts. They're pretty unintrusive compared to many sites, however the one I had biggest beef with was the Shaun White one that popped up whenever I brushed near the top of my browser. I almost broke the internet when that was on here.

    Articles-wise, s'all good really. I don't understand why people even care about Leadbetter's face-offs. It seems like the most trivial thing to me, but then television resolution is SERIOUS BUSINESS as everyone knows.

  • Tomo #4 3 years ago

    Dropping review scores would almost certainly be commercial suicide I suspect. Not only because of metacritic rankings etc., but just because it's a hook - something people can glance and then swiftly move on to the rest of the site bumping up the page impressions.

  • Tomo #5 3 years ago

    Am I spamming yet?

  • Mudo #6 3 years ago

    Why doesn't Eurogamer advertise films, the telly, magazines, etc and so on?

  • DFawkes #7 3 years ago

    As long as I don't see those browser crashing Shaun White ads ever again, I'll be a happy person.

  • Darkedge #8 3 years ago

    Another topic for you Tom:
    personal opinion vs. independent assessment.
    Why has EG become more of a "I hate this but others don't - but screw them they are wrong" site rather than some constancy to the reviews? I can't look at an EG review without looking at the reviewer name first as I know that will heavily colour the review.

    This is linked to why should you have a score but it not just that, it can be the tone of an article. Some always (in genres they hate) start off with a damming first paragraph (which is the only bit most people read + the score unfortunately) but then love the game but as they have started the article so damming the main body is missed.
    Any views on this?

  • Tomo #9 3 years ago

    @ Mudo: As long as it doesn't go down the IGN route...

    THIS WEEK ON EG BABESlol

    @ Darkedge: Personally I think it's a good thing that you're looking at their names. It's better having a persona behind the writing than merely a blank slate. I know what you mean though - Gillen's reviews fill me with dread but they usually make for interesting reading.




  • Mudo #10 3 years ago

    "have no place on a gaming site that takes itself seriously."

    I'd like Eurogamer to take itself even less seriously than it does already.

  • insincere_dave #11 3 years ago

    Don't expect Tom to answer this, but maybe someone else can...

    Do you still get an advertising "hit" when the reader has ad-blocking turned on in their browser?

  • HolyJebus #12 3 years ago

    EG is my fav game site because of the perfect (imo) mix of fun and critical reviews. Keep it up. Not a fan of the face offs but I also have no problem with them being on the site, they get a lot of hits which funds more of the stuff I want to read. The internet has spoiled everyone. Now everyone just complains about everything.

  • presh #13 3 years ago

    How about the decision to keep putting reviews over more and more pages?
    All so you can get more page impressions for advertising stats.

    That is an inconvenience to the reader and is 100% done for money.

    I disagree massively about this - I really enjoy the depth of the reviews on EG - that's one of the reasons I spend so much time on the site. If EG wanted to they could have a shorter review and still split it over multiple pages anyway.

    And as someone who manages web advertising campaigns myself, unique viewers is a more desirable stat than page impressions, longer reviews doesn't affect this.

  • Eighthours #14 3 years ago

    EG had a few months of 3 page reviews, but now the length seems to be back to 2, thank God.

    and make our headlines as dramatic as possible, in order to catch people's attention

    I do think that the news section has suffered from this syndrome a bit in the past year, where a dramatic headline is used that bears little resemblance to the news nugget therein. Of course, I'm in the lame position of saying this but unable to recall specific examples. Can anyone help?

  • deaner #15 3 years ago

    This article should surely be entitled "integrity versus revenue".

    Glad it's come up though, I've been idly watching EG gradually slide from the left to the right on that particular subject for some time.

    Still, that's what the videogame market has been doing - thanks to the likes of the Western powerhouses (queue MS fanboys). Pushing sequels and peripherals while paying lip-service to truebelievers so that they can exploit them for an extra couple of bucks via virtual arcades.

    So why shouldn't EG have a slice of the pudding?

    It's really up to the conscientious gamer to decide who holds the purse strings and controls the gamers world.

    So to the majority of you and for the past few years - forshame!

  • arfling #16 3 years ago

    I like the face-offs. They serve as a good honeypot for the fanboys and keeps them away from the more serious articles such as this one. I like the fact that there does appear to be some intelligence behind the articles and reviews, and possibly suprisingly (on this medium) even some of the comments. This comment excepted, obviously!

  • Eighthours #17 3 years ago

    For example, the way the adversarial way the PS3 vs 360 face-off articles are presented is a blatant incitement to fanboyishness. It brings out the most divisive, knuckle-headed attitudes in people on both sides of the discussion and invariably results in tiresome little flaming duels breaking out across the talkbacks and forums.

    But the Face-Off articles offer useful information. Just because some people act like children in the comments threads (certain PS3 fans who can't take their console "losing", and certain 360 fans who are far too gleeful), it doesn't change that.
    Edited by 1 at 12/01/09 @ 17:06

  • Mugwum Verified Operations Director, Eurogamer Network #18 3 years ago

    Hi guys! As promised I'll try and answer a few of these now, but I'll save a few for specific blog posts (e.g. whether we've considered dropping scores).

    secombe:

    "Interesting, would be good to also know how the "disbelievers" effect you and the team, if at all."

    Personally, the comments that upset me are the ones demonstrating to me that I have overlooked something or made a mistake (or someone else has!), and I'm only upset with myself when I read those. Usually I make a note and try and bear it in mind next time, unless it's something that needs correcting immediately.

    People who are quick to question another's integrity are in a minority, and often can't be convinced that they don't need their tin hat, so while I do to write to some - and evidently want to get more of my thoughts on these issues in the open, given the blog post we're commenting on - it's not something I spend a lot of time worrying about.

    Besides, comments are snapshots of a moment, not necessarily a person. I'm sure people who have written angry things on here are lovely and breezy in real life - if not ten seconds later sat at the same PC anyway. And I'm a twat a lot of the time too, so I refuse to bear grudges :-)

    Mudo:

    "Why doesn't Eurogamer advertise films, the telly, magazines, etc and so on?"

    I actually don't know the real answer to this, but I'd speculate that videogame companies pay more to reach gamers at the moment. There's more crossover than there used to be, however. We'll probably see more of it as gaming websites in Europe get bigger (consider how much film/lifestyle advertising there is on IGN, for instance).

    Darkedge:

    "Some always (in genres they hate) start off with a damming first paragraph (which is the only bit most people read + the score unfortunately) but then love the game but as they have started the article so damming the main body is missed. Any views on this?"

    Well, first thought: I don't really agree. Second thing: I commission people for specific pieces, so if that is the case, it's my failing rather than theirs. Third, there should be a greater variety of writers contributing to Eurogamer in 2009, and I'm still learning, so I think it should improve for you this year.

    EarlBassett:

    "Tom - one thing that bothers me is the tendency in the last year to write useless news items about Gemma Atkinson or holly Valance etc, or to sprinkle news heading with the word 'Porn'. The current Holly Valance interview contains quotes that are at the 'Loaded' or 'Nuts' level and have no place on a gaming site that takes itself seriously."

    I would have to playfully disagree. I believe we publish more serious content than the majority of our contemporaries, so I don't see why we can't have a bit of fun once in a while.

    "I would prefer to read a gaming site that treats me as a serious person and not the stereotype of what a gamer should be."

    It would be fairer to say that I treat you as I would like to be treated, so again it's my flaw rather than my cynicism you should be criticising. As with any of our content, if it upsets people then I'll consider its role, but I should add that while I am responsible for entertaining and informing people (or rather, getting clever people to do that for me!), it's not my responsibility to keep everyone comfortable all of the time.

    Also, if we were treating our readers as stereotypes, we wouldn't spend so much time writing about things like Air Traffic Chaos, MadWorld, Crayon Physics, World of Goo, Love, etc. since nobody buys any of that stuff.

    Mudo:

    "I'd like Eurogamer to take itself even less seriously than it does already."

    Waaaaay aheadaya.

    insincere_dave:

    "Do you still get an advertising "hit" when the reader has ad-blocking turned on in their browser?"

    I don't know. A sales department problem, not an editorial one!

    EarlBassett:

    "How about the decision to keep putting reviews over more and more pages? All so you can get more page impressions for advertising stats. That is an inconvenience to the reader and is 100% done for money."

    I hate to correct you again, but page impressions aren't as important as unique readers. As Eighthours says, we also generally do things on two pages now, since I personally think that's a better split. No one's ever questioned my decision to serve fewer pages per feature, incidentally. Unless they're secretly preparing to fire me!

    deaner:

    "Glad it's come up though, I've been idly watching EG gradually slide from the left to the right on that particular subject for some time. Still, that's what the videogame market has been doing - thanks to the likes of the Western powerhouses (queue MS fanboys). Pushing sequels and peripherals while paying lip-service to truebelievers so that they can exploit them for an extra couple of bucks via virtual arcades. So why shouldn't EG have a slice of the pudding?"

    Well, you know, the internet damns you for your past, and mine's not all Mother Theresa, but I'm having a go as I figure stuff out. Sorry if it doesn't work for you.

    "It's really up to the conscientious gamer to decide who holds the purse strings and controls the gamers world."

    I agree with this part.

    retibra:

    "I'm not suggesting that the editorial position taken creates this fractious atmosphere, just that it seems to take delight in fanning the flames - something that I think is... questionable."

    I'll own some of the stuff you say, but I don't take delight in fanning the flames. The face-offs are designed to compare the performance of different SKUs of the same game primarily to help people with multiple machines figure out which one to buy. (Actually, that's quite funny when you think about it!) They're popular because nobody else does them to the same depth, not just because there are also people who want to angrily protest the virtues of bits of plastic designed to make them poorer.

    Thinking about it, I would say that the bigger problem is that just there. I've said I'll deal with "console bias" in another blog, but a quick word on it because it does address most of your points: sometimes we're just guilty of not taking the Average Joe side of the console war seriously, because it's *ridiculous*. It's never glorying in the flames; I guess it's either sarcastic exasperation or not thinking hard enough about what the effect will be.

    As with the Valance thing though, overall I'd say that while I try to be sensitive to things (like, it's manifestly clear that slagging off Sony for doing something rubbish will make the ensuing comment thread impossible for people who aren't snarling to navigate or use), there are times when we're going to poke fun ("Better Than Halo" isn't us being provocative - it's an EG meme!), and times when we're going to inadvertently say a silly thing.

    The best thing to do is keep questioning it when you don't like it, because I'll always be happy to discuss it, and it's always good to get feedback of the non-snarling variety.


    Right, sorry if that became slightly incoherent towards the end, but it's been a long day and I am recovering from a cold :-) All the best!

    Tom.

  • Krelle #19 3 years ago

    SORRY, LONG RANT, BUT PLEASE READ ON
    Question for Tom:

    Why are EG review scores so often either among the lowest OR the highest scores for games when you look at pages like gamerankings? Not always, but surprisingly often. Too often to be pure coincidence, im afraid.

    You say that you try to use 5 as the "medium" as it should(?) be, which would explain why you often score games lower than most others. But that makes all the highly scored games even more of a puzzle.

    Im sure you dont care squat about what score other people give games, but please, try to explain yourself if there is anything to explain, instead of taking the easy way out and just say "we never look at other scores".

    Ive even got a reason for this question!
    Many years ago I could pretty much "trust" a score that EG would hand out. Trust may be the wrong word, but I had a good feeling of the reviewers and what scores they would hand out. It resonated well with my own likes and dislikes.
    Lately thou, about a year from now, reviews has been all over the place and I see no clear line in the scores you give.

    Sure, a score is just a number at the end of the more important text, but it still sends out a strong message and are (sadly) used more than the actuall text when comparing games.

    Becouse so many scores are either very high, or very low, EGs scoring starts to balance on the verge to "attentionwhoring", which has a clear connection to ads and klicks. I dont think this is the case, but id lie if Id say that the thought havnt crossed my mind once or twice.
    Anyway, it seems to me like you praise games that you want to draw attention to more than they are worth at many times, and only use the "5 is medium"-scale when it comes to less than superb games, or when games just failed to meet hype/high expextations.
    Also, alot of reviewers seems to use their own scale, w/o really paying attention to what criteria EG has for their scores. Especially, Tom seems to score different from many others. Naturally, you are all individs, but there should still be some kind of general rule of scoring, right?

    Does this make sense to anyone besides myself? I hope so.
    Sorry for tldr-ish post and bad language.

  • bad09 #20 3 years ago

    No point denying it Tom MS pays EG's way. Come on own up! I know it's true the SDF said so!

    *Whispers* MGS4 8/10....

    Seriously tho, having worked in advertising in free press (and a little online to) I know the perils of upsetting a big spender and the balance you need when advertising revenue is your bread and butter. It is hard at times.

    TBH the adverts never really bother me in a "editorial-versus-advertising" way (if we're honest only the crying review fanboys normally accuse EG of that sort of thing in any serious way), I rarely use reviews as a buying guide anyway so don't really care about "teh bias!" even if it is there.

    As long as they are NOT NOISY OR IRRITATING it's all good, but in that department EG are lacking sometimes Tom ;)

  • PinkSpider #21 3 years ago

    Hurrah. I do like these.

    The pages thing does annoy me though. Mainly because I copy stuff into notepad to sneakily read later in the working day. And it's a pain with more than one page (also, sometimes really hard to select stuff).

  • TravisTouchdown #22 3 years ago

    On a related topic (and well done Tom - great piece), the very first game I ever worked on, some ten years ago, was awarded an 8 by a particular magazine ... because we gave them an exclusive front cover. That was the deal, plain and simple.

    So these kinds of things do happen ... but they happen in all forms of media. And Eurogamer, I know, is 99% - almost certainly 100% - clean as a whistle, where others aren't. So be thankful for that.

  • Nick #23 3 years ago

    "Do you still get an advertising "hit" when the reader has ad-blocking turned on in their browser?"

    Generally speaking no, which is why you shouldn't do it!

  • peterfll #24 3 years ago

    I've posted many times in the Faceoff challenges but assume I get drowned out by he noise, so I will say Tom that I 100% love these articles.

    I think they're based on objective parameters and I have yet to see a logical arguement put forward against them. And TBH Tom the benefit is not limited to just potential console buyes - but actual owners of all the major platforms who - for chrissake! - just want to know what's the best platform to buy their multi-platform game on.

    The fact that these articles seem to be so controversial but EG was and still IS the only site \ mag devoting some time to this subject. I take that as vindication of showing your true credientials by being brave to put your necks on the line when clearly other publications chose not to address it. I accept you'll still get knocks for it, by people who think the exact opposite (you do it for all the wrong reasons, generate the traffic etc). But you'll continue to get my hit.

  • mcbi4kh2 #25 3 years ago

    Please never ever ever put an ad on the site with automatically playing sound. The 'Animal Crossing' ad before Christmas drove me insane. Other than that easily the best game site, updated more often than Gamespot / IGN etc a lot better to look at than Joystiq/ (ps3/360) fanboy and there seems to be less tards on the forums. Good work.

  • vegard #26 3 years ago

    this is the best games website on the internets, and i'm pretty much ready to be a EG groupie by now. pass the cocaine please!

  • CunningLinguist #27 3 years ago

    I think if you dropped the scores altogether I'd trust you more since it would be an opinion that you're airing, and not a review. A review implies some degree of objectivity. I know you're probably thinking that objectivity is subjective and subjectivity is objective but the fact remains that you can't publish an opinion then slap a score at the end and call it a review. At least that's my view on it.

    As for the MGS 4 debacle, is it so that the text itself is the opinion of the person who played it and the score is the review? Because if that's the case then you might as well just give us a score and skip the text all together. I am not interested in reading a review which in fact is one man's opinion on what makes the game interesting/boring for him. I want to read about the pros and cons of the game. Far too often it feels like EG's staff is trying to paint themselves as dandy bohemian gamers who were kind enough to pause their game of Baccarat in order to throw a "review" to the masses. And of course when the masses complain it is only because they aren't sophisticated enough to understand the subtleties of your text.

    This is why I think Kotaku works so much better. And funny enough I consider them to be far more bohemian than you lot. The difference is they just do it, while you guys stop and look in the mirror every 5 minutes.

    If I seem harsh it is because I want your best, oddly enough.

    P.S. Stop using the word esoteric when there are much better synonyms available. I once read the phrase "esoteric rollercoaster" in your ReZ review... Really?!

  • FogHeart #28 3 years ago

    Personally, the comments that upset me are the ones demonstrating to me that I have overlooked something or made a mistake (or someone else has!)

    Communal Crotch Flaying :D (Ijust won't let that go will I?)

    Whatever. This site could be twice as dumb and still address me with more intelligence than any other gamer website does, so despite the Dead occasional Space gripe I won't go anywhere else.

  • Rodafowa #29 3 years ago

    We used to be last on the list. We weren't invited to the party. We just wrote about whatever we found and liked at the time.

    There are worse editorial strategies than writing about what interests you.

    That's the crux of it. I came to EG because you (the corporate "you", obv) were getting talented writers to write about interesting stuff in an interesting way. Keep doing that, and we'll be cushti. Everything else is just extraneous fluff.

  • Tomo #30 3 years ago

    > "I am not interested in reading a review which in fact is one man's opinion on what makes the game interesting/boring for him. I want to read about the pros and cons of the game."

    This sounds like far too much a statistical approach to me. Sounds like you need a list of bullet points or something.

    Moreover though, opinion is what makes a review. No review is ever simply a summary of good versus bad, no matter how objectively someone might try. That's probably the most boring approach I can think of. Something with passion or hate driving it is going to inspire me to make a decision as to whether I buy or not.

  • Subi #31 3 years ago

    The only problem I have with the advertising on Eurogamer is that it take BLOODY AGES TO LOAD, particularly the complex Flash ones. I'd disable Flash, but then I wouldn't be able to watch the videos.

  • reddin321 #32 3 years ago

    Annoying flash ads (e.g. playing sound or bringing down my old laptop to a crawl) are what caused me to use Firefox and flashblock. I have never used AdBlock because advertising are what pays for most sites, but if you are going to annoy me I will block them.
    These days I use NoScript and I decide on a site by site basis whether or not I allow them running scripts, mostly for security reasons. But it effectively stops all flash until I allow it. :)
    So on eurogamer I usually allow all script until there is an annoying ad (there was one not to long ago, started just playing sound; should be a law against that), at which point it gets blocked for a few weeks.
    Generally the ads here are not that bad, but still something to watch out for.

    Also, I enjoy the "silly" articles, reminds me of the silly things the 1up show used to do (R.I.P.). And of course the indy/ less mainstream games, quite some games I wouldn't have bought if I hadn't read about it here.

    Lastly I would just like to say somewhere that I don't care for eurogamer in my native language (Dutch), and competitions should be for all Europe. Thank you. :)

  • CunningLinguist #33 3 years ago

    @Tomo

    You took that out of context. I don't have anything against the sort of review that builds around the author's personal touch, but don't slap a number at the end of it. All that does is to authenticate the fact that the score is relevant to the author's personal experience, and unless we share tastes it will never be relevant to me. So what do you want to read?

    Now that you mention the bullet point method you should know that that's the way they do it on Kotaku and it works. It's concise and devoid of any ambitions of literary grandeur. Don't get me wrong I enjoy all the little extras that the EG staff sprinkle in their articles, but it comes at a cost. It all feels like they're constantly patting themselves on the back, and in my opinion that distracts from the text.

    Again I don't want this to be taken as critique, it's just my opinion. I am probably in the minority here and I don't expect anything to change just for me. But I do believe that it is important to air my opinion, just like it's important to listen to what others have to say.

  • stepneg #34 3 years ago

    I like the main EG just as it is, the advertising doesn't bother me and I have been a regular reader for years and usually visit numerous times during my day. I find the reviews are honest and most of the time reflect my own opinions so feel safe that no one has taken a back hander. The face offs are great and usually last me all day trawling through the comments and as far as I'm concerned you can't have enough Gemma or Holly. For all the moaners there are lot's of other sites but in my opinion are no where near as good as EG.

    Slightly OT the one thing I don't like is the forum, I have tried to use it many times but I cannot stand how it is laid out!

  • tomnol #35 3 years ago

    Great insights here. I really appreciate these little tidbits from you, Tom. What I find most fascinating about EG (and the reason why it is imo miles above other gaming sites and why I come back daily) is the quasi personal relationship you've managed to create between you and your readers. I mean, I don't know any of you in person, but I still have the feeling you've become part of my extended online family. When you read IGN or gamespot articles you tend to read the article for itself, and couldn't give a toss about the writer. Here you always weigh in who wrote what and fine tune your (dis)agreement based on the history/character of the reviewer as an added filter.

    The writing here, while occasionally a bit too controversial for the sake of controversion for my taste, is always top notch, funny, witty and hardly ever boring or irrelevant. The site's design also helps. It is relatively fast loading, doesn't use cheesy IGN-style backround images and stays clear of stupid 'most wanted' lists. As for the face-offs, I am with retibra, though. Since the 360 has practically 'won' every one of these comparisons it seems a bit cheeky by now to still rationalize these fanboy baits as 'shopping advice for multi-platform owners'. Just let go and try to generate page impressions elsewhere, maybe with even more detailed reviews of AAA titles or --even better -- multiple reviews with second or third opinions of other reviewers on the same title (would certainly have helped in the case of MGS4 ;-). Putting the review of important games like GTA 4, or Gears of War into the hands of one reviewer only is somewhat a wasted opportunity imo (I know, there is always a shortage of time and resources, but still).

    Finally two things I am interested in: first, lately (last year) I had the feeling that many reviews showed a weird discrepancy between review text and score. IOW, the text sounded like the reviewer totally liked (or hated) the game, yet the score somewhat came out the total opposite (I have no concrete example at hand, but it seems to me that Kristan had a few of those reviews where he was quite enthusiastic about something only to totally drag it down in the last paragraph and give it a score that seemed quite unexpected given the write up). So my question would be: what, in your impression, is there first when you (or anyone at EG) writes a review? Score or text?

    Secondly: do you have any insights/control over the content of your localized sites, or are they truly independent? Because I feel, sadly, that some of your partner sites (I am talking in particular about eurogamer.de) do not adhere to the same level of quality that the mothership has, which might of course be due to them still being too young?

  • Tomo #36 3 years ago

    > "Slightly OT the one thing I don't like is the forum, I have tried to use it many times but I cannot stand how it is laid out!"

    Hehe. Whatever you do, don't type that on the actual forum ;]

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #37 3 years ago

    The 'Animal Crossing' ad before Christmas drove me insane.

    This. I've used the internet for over a decade without ever bothering with an ad-blocking program, but that made me install one. Good work, whichever marketing genius came up with that.

  • TheBard #38 3 years ago

    I work in online advertising and in many ways, Eurogamer is my personal benchmark für ad quality. The selection of ads is simply astounding, but EG not only has great brands on the site, but the integration of wallpapers (the ad format, not your desktop background) using the broad monster ad in combination with a still background just works! And aside from some standard supersize banners which are sometimes loaded with a looping and blinking animation, these site events are completely unobstrusive, with only a minimum of animation and interference. And this just oozes professionalism, opposed to just some random ad banners from some affiliate network. Eurogamer is one of the best examples I know where good advertising really strenghtens the site itself.

    So again, kudos for the great work to the ad and sales team.

  • espy #39 3 years ago

    I am not interested in reading a review which in fact is one man's opinion on what makes the game interesting/boring for him. I want to read about the pros and cons of the game.

    Hmm, that's exactly what I'm interested in. I've come to know some of the writers here on a somewhat superficial level, and I know who has similar tastes and tolerances etc. to myself, so this es exactly the sort of information I want. Knowing that there are 20 guns and you can shoot people's arms off is quantitative and somewhat useless, but getting a sense of what the game feels like, which tiny details put a smile on the reviewer's face, the way they can fall in love with something that might even be fundamentally incomplete and can be considered broken when viewed rationally, that's what does it. I mean, read the STALKER review. Half the time is spent describing stuff that doesn't work, but the subjective, stylistically embellished rest of it just sells it to someone like me, and knowing who wrote the review actually reinforces that.

  • rauper Verified Managing Director, Eurogamer Network #40 3 years ago

    TheBard: Wanna buy some ads?! :)

  • Shrike #41 3 years ago

    I think that gamers more than most other nominal communities are split between being completely, obsessively literal-minded about their hobby and being more - dare I say it - idiosyncratic and abstract about it. There's a number of reasons why this might be (and why games in particular might draw this crowd) but that's a discussion for somewhere else. EG has always been a site for the latter kind of gamer, as I see it, which is why a certain set of people get very upset by the "controversy-baiting" reviews and "biased" writers. I read this site primarily because I don't find review scores to be of great importance and, like certain other commenters, I'm more interested in reading an intelligent and critical- while entertaining - take on a game I am likely to buy. Or even games I'm not likely to buy. I read EG exclusively because no other gaming website offers the same quality of writing - at least none of the big ones. And I read almost everything EG puts out, because EG seems to celebrate the ideosyncratic nature of itself, its writers, and the games it covers.

    Most of my minor niggles with EG are things I've learned to work around - for example, the practice of putting soundbytes from interviews as news prior to releasing the interview. The only thing - seriously, the only thing - that has offended me recently is the bits in the Gemma Atkinson and Holly Valance interviews where Ellie asks what a 'Eurogamer' should do if they wanted to pull someone like that - as if Eurogamers are exclusively lonely, inept teenage boys. The rest of the website generally plays hard against typical views of gamers and the lazy journalism that characterises games coverage in the papers. I don't have a problem with interviewing non-gaming related celebrities, but it seems like I'm still waiting for the day when this interview takes place on neutral ground - where the fact that you're a 'Eurogamer' doesn't mean that you have to be apologetic for the 'gamer' bit. But I guess we're all waiting for that.

    Rant off.

  • mazzl #42 3 years ago

    nice read Tom, keep up the good work.
    this also means prohibit marketing from EVER, EVER excepting adds like Shaun White EVER! again!
    hope i made myself perfecly clear on that one Tom!

    on to the article:
    i njoy the format face off articles, just laughing at the fanboys and the ps3 results (since i only have a 360) ;) is pure gold.

    please contineau these editor's bloggs there a good read


  • evilbert #43 3 years ago

    Apart from the Animal Crossing ad, most don't bother be. Although I hated the ones that opened up to a bigger ad when the mouse hovered over them but these seem to have been done away with.

    Is there any chance of you guys developing a mobile version of the site? The big, graphical ads take ages to load on my phone and sometime cause the browser to crash. I don't mind ads appearing when I'm reading from the phone but the really big ones make it too troublesome.

    Also Tom, coming to work while recovering from a cold? Bloody hell man, you're a legend for thinking about work at all while being debilitated by Manflu! :)

  • butler` #44 3 years ago

    And a great stance it is too, Tom. Moderation in all things, as my Gran used to say!

  • stampax #45 3 years ago

    interesting and another good read.

  • peterfll #46 3 years ago

    @retira

    Forgive me, when I posted my original comment I didn't even see your initial comments about the face offs. Rather than answer your points in turn, let me explain my position on this.

    I own both PS3 and 360 consoles and on the whole have been delighted with both. I'm lucky enough to have the money to invest in some nice AV equipment, so I have a smashing Sony 46" 1080p TV and a proper powerful Denon amp. Sometimes there's moments when both consoles have taken my breath away with their graphical prowess. Too many to name, but I'll point to Uncharted and Burnout on the PS3, and GoW, PGR on the 360. From a sound perspective, I think Warhawk is the only on either that support true 7.1 sound, so there's very little to distinguish. But my point is, that in the right hands both consoles are technically extremely capable I don't really think there's much of a gap in capability, at least to date in what we've seen.

    What I've noticed is that, generally speaking, cross platform titles, to date, have fared worse on the PS3. Now whilst I understand some of the reasoning behind this, SDK and all that jazz (I was a developer in a previous life) TBH as a regular consumer I don't really care. So, some of these "inferior" PS3 version, the changes are marginal - and I agree without the sort of technical analysis that the Face-off articles provide most of us wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But sometimes they are not. And even now, sometimes the differences are really apparent, even though clearly a lot of the cross-platform issues are being ironed out by developers. How much apparent? Well, I do trust EG, and sometimes the issues are to do with low or unstable frame rates and tearing. And I hate both, especially tearing, I find it distracting and really off-putting. Now, that's my problem I admit, but it's a factor for me. Also, the RRP on games on PS3 titles are usually higher than the 360. So basically if I'm going to buy a game that's available on both, I'd like to know which one is technically more accomplished (if either). I don't mind spending a couple of quid extra for the best one. I bought Burnout Paradise on the PS3 for example. I bought GTA4 on the 360.

    I should add to this, with my TV I've realised that graphical imperfections are more noticeable on large displays than perhaps on smaller displays, or those with lower resolutions.

    I couldn't really give a toss for the fanboy comments, I've resigned myself to them like so many others have. Also, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you either, we're all entitled to our point of view. But I have been told that my point of view is not valid, and the value I place on the Face-off articles is misplaced. Well I do disagree with both of those points. Hence I'd personally like for them to continue until a complete neglible parity is reached.

  • rodpad #47 3 years ago

    Shrike's Holly Valance and Gemma Atkinson comments I couldn't agree more with. It's patronising drivel that shouldn't be on a site like this. It's stuff like that NOT being on here which brings the core audience here.

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #48 3 years ago

    Odd as this may sound, I think the C-list promotional celebrity interviews are going over your heads a bit.

    Ellie's interviews serve principally to highlight the pointlessness of forcing the world's beautiful women to promote video games they clearly have little intrest in. Plus they give us a bit of a laugh as she asks them the sort of questions a male interviewer would probably get slapped in the face or hung up on for.

    They're the antithesis of that recent Danish newspaper video where the fellow takes it all too seriously by asking some model archaeology questions.

    Keep ' em coming, I say.

  • goz #49 3 years ago

    "They're the antithesis of that recent Danish newspaper video where the fellow takes it all too seriously by asking some model archaeology questions."

    Really? You mean the Lara Croft interview? I definitely thought that was tongue-in-cheek too...

  • MENTAL1ST Verified Senior Software Engineer, Picsel UK Ltd. #50 3 years ago

    Well, it's difficult to tell, given the foreign-ness. It wouldn't have been funny if she'd known the answers, and hadn't just freaked out.

  • Shrike #51 3 years ago

    @Mentalist

    No, I get that. That's why I don't mind the irreverence/irrelevance of the rest of the interview. It's just the stereotyping of gamers that bothers me, because it's not a particularly good joke. Even if the intention is to draw attention to the fact that it's not a good joke, I'd still rather it didn't get made.

  • BremXJones #52 3 years ago

    ""Do you still get an advertising "hit" when the reader has ad-blocking turned on in their browser?" "

    No, websites don't.

    KG

  • sonicgoo #53 3 years ago

    If you're going to have reviews as the personal opinion of the reviewer, rather than trying to be objective, then maybe it's a good idea to have a short bio of each reviewer with their personal likes and dislikes. That way people won't have to go through their entire history to find out what they're all about.

    Multiple reviews of a game from different angles might be interesting as well.

  • sonicgoo #54 3 years ago

    Another thing to consider might be that many games these days are released while broken. Reviewers often seem to not want to include such factors as they might be patched in the future (of course, they also might not be). And then there are companies like Monolith who tend to release most of the multiplayer part of their games months after the singleplayer release.

    The obvious solution would be to have re-reviews for these games as well, the same way as is done with MMOs right now.