Talk:PC Gamer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Magazines (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article is supported by the Wikiproject VG Reference library.

Old comments[edit]

This article has no use whatsoever, it needs to either be created, or simply deleted, while PC Gamer UK may well be deserving of an article, the said article is worthless. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.155.185.160 (talk • contribs) 17:04, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I would certainly debate it being "useless"; it does, after all, provide some sort of history of the magazine, and some information about it. It just needs expanding, which I may do if I can find the time.
I'm not entirely sure about the review scores section though. As far as I'm aware, PC Gamer UK has never awarded more than 96% (Half-Life and a few other titles) to any game. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but for now I'm clarifying that in the article. (I'm assuming the 98% is correct for the US version.)

Fishdonuts 09:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Irony?[edit]

In the US edition, the lowest score awarded was 4% (Mad Dog McCree 2). Ironically, before Mad Dog McCree 2, the lowest score awarded was for its predecessor, Mad Dog McCree (awarded 8%).

Ironic? This is more coincidental, isn't it? Ironic would be if the original Mad Dog Mcree was the highest rated game in PC Gamer

Jcos 15:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a coincidence either... Irony would be if the score was so low becasue the reviewer was unable to concentrate, having recently contracted rabies. Rich Farmbrough, 11:10 5 September 2006 (GMT).
That's not irony at all, irony would be something defying what should have been expected, and is mildly humorous for doing so--topper 16:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It's niether coincidence nor irony. Irony is a result or situation that is the opposite of what would be expected. Coincidence is an accidental, but seemingly planned occurrence of events. One would not reasonably expect the sequel to this awful game to be markedly better than the original, so where is the irony? Also, there is nothing about the situation that would lead one to believe that it was seemingly planned event. - StylishNihilist 00:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)StylishNihilist

Seperate UK & U.S.[edit]

I was a subscriber for 3 years, and so if it was separated would be happy to edit it up to standard.

I think the UK edition should be the one which PC Gamer directs to, and PC Gamer U.S. should be a seperate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fragsta (talkcontribs)

  • Personally, I don't feel there is enough content for two articles. - CaptainAmerica 00:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • However, I added the template. - CaptainAmerica 00:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Fragsta. The two editions are actually quite different and deserve their own articles. As for lack of content, it's not as if this article is the most in depth description ever at this point. More info obviously needs to be added. -- Grandpafootsoldier 08:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I concur. We're really holding ourselves back by having the two very different magazines in one article. UnaLaguna 06:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with it. The article is far too small to warrant a split, if it were great deal larger and heading towards an unwieldy size then perhaps, but at the moment I'm against it. As it stands there is only one reference, very little about the content of each magazine, minimal history and it dosen't even have the Infobox Magazine Template on it. Wait until the article has increased in size and quality before suggesting a split - X201 08:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe they should be split. The only thing that links the two magazines is their name and publisher. They are completely different entities. --Phydaux 23:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Much like the two halves of Unilever, but it would be stupid to split them. Splitting PC Gamer now will make two weak articles, it would be much better to split them when there is an article big enough to warrant a split. - X201 14:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Not the greatest of analogies, according to the article Unileaver was 2 companies that merged, but still have 2 headquarters, and are run by the same people. PC Gamer and PC Gamer (US) were never one magazine. Future publishing decided to release similar magazines in different countries. Does this mean that PC Jeux, Giochi Computer, PC Gamer (Malaysia), PC Gamer (Russia), PC Gamer (Sweden) should also be included in this article? Maybe yes until each section has a substantial content, maybe no because there isn't enough to link them together. Maybe only the English versions because this is an English version of wikipedia, then we still need to include PC Gamer Malaysia. --Phydaux 20:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
My analogy wasn't based on the whole company life story. I was trying to point out that they are two very different entities but with a common bond between them. Just like PCG(UK/US) are. - X201 14:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Concur with the move to split the articles. Both magazines have long publishing histories, with PC Gamer UK's longer and perhaps more notable in the realm of VG journalism. Both have a lot of character that would do well to be covered in separate articles. I am by no means an expert on the US edition, but have followed the UK version since its inception and I feel that I could contribute, with others' help, to producing a solid separated article.

Am not sure whether we need to hold a more official debate on this, but if we get people willing to edit up each of the articles from (relative) stubs can we just 'be bold'? Harmonica 01:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Be Bold? Yes, we should! Anyone who wants to do this can and should do it! Woo! --Wunderbear 14:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. While both magazines have history, rededicating individual articles to separate publications and simply filling them with content would be borderline advertising and/or fancruft. Keep them together and fill in other versions from around the world, while expanding the current two major publications with more data. TFX 01:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. They really are alike in name only. - 82.3.182.53 16:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with it. They have a different writing style because of different writers. On a side note, can someone try to bring Craig's page back on, because he seemed unhappy that it was gone on Podcast 5

New nomination[edit]

I've re-tagged this with {{split}}. PC Gamer operates as two magazines, with separate editors and writers and operating independently. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I oppose a split on the grounds stated. The combined article needs to be built into a much stronger entity first, because if it is split in it's current form it will become two weak articles. On a side note though, given the petty US centric editing by IP users of late, who seem to despise the fact that the magazine's origins are in Britain, by constantly putting the US edition at the top of the article and moving the UK edition down the page, (from my own viewpoint) a split might be worthwhile just to get rid of people who perform such a pathetic actions from editing the article. - X201 08:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The US IP users are from the US PC Gamer Podcast, where the Wikipedia entry got a mention (I'm from the UK but listen to the US Podcast, so I sort of span both sides). As for the split, I think it will make the article a lot clearer. The current article is confusing because information about UK and US versions can get mixed up. --h2g2bob (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Second thoughts, it's probably better kept together as there are several non-US-or-UK versions. --h2g2bob (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually think that splitting will make life easier, bacause these arguments are becoming petty. HOWEVER!!! They are decieding it on a Team Fortress 2 match on the 1st of October. Can I put that on the 1st October page as an important event. mY PASSWORD ISN'T WORKING! pLEASE CAN YOU RESET IT. tHANK YOU (Dragon909) 12:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
They started the problem with the petty editing. THEY don't own the Wikipedia article. It is not theirs to decide what goes where in the article. Wikipedia articles are decided by consensus and editors discussing what is best for the article, not by fake pseudo-macho posturing on a game. The stupid result of it is that this page will constantly get vandalised and split pages will get vandalised (although all of the vandalism tends to originate from the US so it will probably only be the UK page on the receiving end) I'm in two minds, either wait and see what happens or force the split through to screw up their pathetic bet. I'm not against a bit of friendly rivalry like they're doing, I just think that innocent third parties should not have to bear the brunt of the fallout from it. - X201 21:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they don't own the article (Arguable, nobody does), but the reckless editing seems to be a statement of pride. And the match kept being moved back, so I think UK wins by forfeit. And Ross and the team are NOT psuedo-machos. Grr. mY PASSWORD ISN'T WORKING! pLEASE CAN YOU RESET IT. tHANK YOU (Dragon909) 12:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the UK podcast, the US didn't want to have a match. Craig also mentioned that the US think that the UK edition is 'owning' the article and that's why this whole thing started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon909 (talkcontribs) 13:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the US have just decided to forego the whole thing, according the the UK Podcast. I think everything should be alright.Dragon909 12:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Number of UK issues[edit]

You can use this template "for 323 issues," if you like. Rich Farmbrough, 11:07 5 September 2006 (GMT).

PCGamer UK has 13 issues a year (each month and a "Christmas" issue). I don't believe your template currently counts 13 issues per year. --Phydaux 23:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Fraid not :( ... Rich Farmbrough, 16:59 23 November 2006 (GMT).

Devoted to Reviewing New Computer Games?[edit]

I don't know about the UK version, but this certainly doesn't seem to be true of the US version anymore. In the latest issue (#154) they devoted pages 22-42 to hyping up GuildWars Nightfall while the longest review in the magazine was only 1 page. It seems to me that they are more devoted to hyping and previewing games that reviewing them anymore. Wjousts 21:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Not the same in the UK. As 2007 is the year of greats such as Bioshock and Crysis, these reviews are/will be at least 2 pages long. The big releases get quite long ones. If you want long reviews, just ask for Tom Francis. I quote Ross saying "You ask him for 500 words on Crysis and get 50,000 instead. So you have to say 'This is really good, but can you cut it down JUST a bit?'" Work hard, Play hard, Drink harder 17:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The UK Bioshock review was seven pages long - X201 18:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Opinion/I agree[edit]

That is your personal opinion, and I don't that anything should be said about their review/preview ratio then is already said. On the subject on seperate US, UK articles, I totally agree with seperating the two. Even though they both have the same name, they are very different magazines, each with a distinct culture.--DoomBW 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe so, but can you really get that substantial of an article if you separate the two without repeating 75% of the information? (The other 25% being the specific numbers, e.g. highest and lowest ratings)

Necessary to list 95% games?[edit]

There are a lot of games that the US version of PC Gamer has rated 95%. Simply listing Company of Heroes as a sole example is rather bias so I vote that it be stricken. TFX 17:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Another Opinion: It just a more recent example of 95% score

Don't think it's worthy of the mention. TFX 09:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Company of Heroes only scored 94% (PCG 166) see article "Company of Heroes" I think that Rome:Total War is the most recent example of a 95% score. see article "Rome:Total War"

Actually, CoH got 96% in PCG US October 2006 issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.150.42.3 (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations and references for PC Gamer UK[edit]

I removed the citation needed from the section. Although I doubt there are going to be any on-line sources for the information contained, I can cite the individual magazines that contain the information described. I don't know how best to include them into the article though.

For the claim:

  • "Article originally shipped with a floppy disk" - PC Gamer, Vol 1, No 11, October 1994, Page 5
  • "First CD Gamer included content from previous floppies" - PC Gamer, Vol 1, No 11, October 1994, Page 15

I hope to expand the British section soon too. --Phydaux 21:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Coconut Monkey[edit]

This minor running gag/mascot doesn't need its own article. recommend merge here. or delete outright. Bwithh 22:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Not notable enough for a whole article. CaptainAmerica 09:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Merged. Rich Farmbrough, 17:40 23 November 2006 (GMT).

Target audience[edit]

Does anyone know where I could find a quotation or piece of information showing the target audience for PC Gamer.

Ages 30-40

Expansion of the British Edition[edit]

I noticed that British section was a bit bare, and i wanted to expand a bit on the PCG Server, Cables, Uncensored, and Gamer Snap...and maybe a bit more on Extra Life too...--topper 16:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Topper. Until the page gets split (possibly?) then it appears that whilst the UK edition stays on top, it only makes sense it should have a decent amount of content. Melaisis (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Australian Edition[edit]

Is this still being published? I haven't seen a copy in the newsagent for some years now, and even when it was available, it was basically the US edition with most of the columns stripped out and Australian release dates in the ads. The reviews, editorials, and so on were, IIRC, taken straight from the US edition. Seeing as the two magazines cost about the same amount of money, I don't know anyone who purchased the Australian edition when the US one was available. --Commander Zulu 13:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

A request - 2000 awards[edit]

I'm currently working on a complete rewrite of Firearms (computer game), which won one PC Gamer (UK I think, despite the current citation to the US website) award and was a runner up for another in 2000. I was wondering if anyone has any kind of source info, eg a citation of which issue the 2000 awards were in. A URL would obviously be ideal, but I've spent ages searching for one myself without success. Thanks in advance Modest Genius talk 20:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Podcasts[edit]

I've added the people who were in the PC GAMER UK podcasts to date. However, I've probably made some spelling mistakes, and I'm not sure that I've got the last name of the competition winner right (Ross does mumble it on the recording)Work hard, Play hard, Drink harder 17:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox order[edit]

I think it's best to keep the UK infobox on the top, as it was published first. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

In the 100th US podcast the US editor was talking about playing the UK staff at a game of Team Fortress 2 and semi-jokingly said that he wanted to have the US cover as the top cover on the Wikipedia article, that I suspect is the cause of the petty vandalism. In fact, one person on the podcast said that it was only fair that the UK edition was on top because it was the first edition. It would be nice if the US editor would tell US podcast listeners he was only joking and ask whoever it is doing this to stop, as it only makes the job of other PC Gamer fans who are trying to make this article better harder. - X201 10:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I caught the podcast, but I didn't register about the cover positions wager. According to PCGUK,[1], that'll be decided on 1st October. I might ask for a week's semi-protection immediately following that, to foil their scheme. As for the vandals, Stapleton asked them to stop,[2] and I think that'll probably work (apart from infobox positions).
I really do want to start a debate about which should go first. My instinct is that it started in the UK, so that should go first (even if the US one has wider circulation). An alternative would be to place the infoboxes under the "american edition" and "british edition" headings; but again one of the two will need to come first. --h2g2bob (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

They have now chosen who deserves the top place of article. I'm guessing that UK won, because they are currently at the top. I'll try to verify that ASAP mY PASSWORD ISN'T WORKING! pLEASE CAN YOU RESET IT. tHANK YOU (Dragon909) 08:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said above in the "New Nomination" section. It is not theirs to decide. - X201 09:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
They've re-scheduled to 19 October, we're safe for now... --h2g2bob (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Are they heck gonna do that? The publishers wouldn't dare let them in case they lost mY PASSWORD ISN'T WORKING! pLEASE CAN YOU RESET IT. tHANK YOU (Dragon909) 12:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree with X201, the info box order should be as when released; UK then US. First come, first served. And any other order should not be contemplated at all. Nreive 09:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

I have constantly read about vandalism to articles, particularly this PC Gamer one, witnessing first hand the recent petty vandalism. Why on Earth can anyone without a username edit? It doesn't take too long to register a username, so why is logging in to edit not mandatory? Nreive 07:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed quite a bit over the years, but it's generally decided to remain open. This is partly historical, and partly to encourage new editors to improve the article. But the problem isn't as bad as you think: some vandalism is repaired by the bots, and a recent study showed that half of all obvious vandalism is repaired within three page views. Pages can be semi-protected if needed to prevent IP editing (this will probably soon be changing to sighted revisions). --h2g2bob (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

  • San Fransisco Chronicle Early 1999, Imagine [now Future] bought IDG's PC Games and "folded it into PC Gamer"
  • Indy 2005 Circulation ~60,000 price £5.99 "Its focus is squarely on PC games and its reviews are exhaustively in-depth, with some games being given features of four to six pages."

Either there are not many good sources about, or I suck at finding them. --h2g2bob (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

These sources now in article --h2g2bob (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The slight hatred from US and UK[edit]

Not really a massive part, but it is a small thing that I think could go in the article. Of course, references would need to be found, but the only ones I can think of is the one on the PC GAMER UK website and there might be one on the US website. Somewhere...--Dragon909 12:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

switch US and UK edition's page placement?[edit]

they bet who got the top place based on the outcome to a TF2 match. PCG US won (see related podcast) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.238.136 (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

They don't own this article. I had a bet with my cousin, he said that all of Wikipedia should be deleted, and I said it shouldn't. We're going to resolve it tomorrow by tossing a coin. - X201 (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
They are placed according to chronological order. PC Gamer UK is older, the original, so comes first. —Vanderdeckenξφ 11:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

US PC Gamer Launch date[edit]

I know for a fact the launch date for PC Gamer US is earlier than Dec 1994. I have the Sept, Oct, and Nov issues for that year and they also reference back issues to issue 1 which was June 1994. I will try to get an image of the back issue order page from the mag to back up the date. For what ever reason the web page sited on the launch of US pc gamer is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdonis (talkcontribs) 10:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Good spot. Cover here. I'll remove the old ref from the article seeing as how its wrong.- X201 (talk) 10:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think who ever wrote the artice (on the publisher website) just new it started in 1994 and the number of issues made but erronously thought every year 13 issues were published. The holliday issue only started in 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.230.203.254 (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Trouble with other gaming sites[edit]

It seems like PC Gamer isn't getting on with other gaming websites, especially those focused on Adventure games. If I understood correctly, they've even been threatened with a law suit by Just Adventure+. http://www.justadventure.com/articles/State_of_Adventure_Gaming/March2009/SOAG_Mar4.shtm

--151.33.218.219 (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Game Players[edit]

If I recall correctly, PC Gamer was originally the new development of Game Players Guide to PC Entertainment, which was a spin-off from Game Players. Game Players split into three magazines, I think: Game Players Guide to Nintendo Games, Game Players Guide to Sega Games, and Game Players Guide to PC Entertainment. Signal, then Imagine, published these magazines, and PC Gamer, making them sister magazines to Next Generation, and ALL Future magazines that exist today. However, I have no results for citations, because the Internet seems to vague or void of this period of video game magazines' history. 70.180.188.238 (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Found this rant. I'm not using it for citation, but it can lead to actual citations: http://www.mastergamer.com/featuresimagine.html 70.180.188.238 (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

UK circulation figures[edit]

I added in 2010 to 2013 (inclusive) circulation figures. Now the box looks a bit bloated. The three options which come to mind are leaving all the figures in, deleting older figures, or adding a new section after "Podcast" called "Circulation".

If the figures are left in, it is easier to read and see a trend when the print/digital split is left out and the human eye can easily scan down the list of total circulation numbers, but then less information is given. Which should we go with?

I also like the idea of adding a new section, as the historical data shows an interesting trend of decreasing circulation figures, and could be put into the wider context and compared with the average decrease in circulation figures in the industry (plus other events in the industry e.g. PC Zone shutting down). A table could be used to show circulation figures, the split between print and digital, and (not currently included in the page) the percentage change between each year. Also the price of the magazine over time could be included. However, this may be overkill for the amount of information available.

I would prefer to not delete the historical data as the falling numbers show an interesting trend. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Advancedk (talkcontribs) 16:02, 20 September 2014‎

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on PC Gamer. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 10:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on PC Gamer. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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 22:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)