Games for Windows Magazine hits newsstands
by Vladimir Cole 
{ Nov 18th 2006 at 9:55PM }
The first-ever issue of Games for Windows: The Official Magazine (formerly Computer Gaming World) hit newsstands Friday. Weighing in at 134 pages, the magazine's new focus on games for Windows allows the editorial staff to focus on the PC as a platform to rival consoles "minus the annoying Linux and Mac noise" according to the magazine's editor.
A few highlights from issue 01:
- Nice, light design. Most game magazines have a heavy, dark feel to them. GFW's art and layout are lighter and easier on the eyes, though almost all of the advertising is still annoyingly black.
- GFW's editor (Jeff Green) promises that Microsoft has no say in anything that his staff prints between the covers of the magazine. It's still an independent editorial venture, "despite that big honkin' Windows logo on the front cover." That's important.
- If you didn't care for the magazine before, it's unlikely that the renaming and new design will change your mind. The magazine's contents are still the same because it's still staffed by the same staff sitting in the same seats at the same desks covering the same games. This is the same book with a different cover.
- The most exciting change is GFW's new scoring system. In a ballsy move, GFW has recalibrated their score system: a score of 5 out of 10 is "average." Anything above a five is "above average" and anything below five is "below average." Games that previously might have earned 8 or 9 might now be earning scores of 6 or 7! Let's see how long they'll stick to their guns on this one, as they're sure to catch a lot of heat from game publishers. Stay strong, guys! You're on the side of the gamer with this change.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Zeke @ Nov 18th 2006 9:59PM
Might have to pick up a copy =x
Sub @ Nov 18th 2006 9:59PM
PC Gamer reviews games like that too. I personally would rather they stuck with the "60 - 100" range that most sites use. I don't think it matters that all the numbers aren't used, the only thing that does matter is that it's understood by the majority of the population since this is how grades worked in school.
Ritz @ Nov 18th 2006 10:05PM
Hrm, for the most part I see a game score of 6 and lower to be a waste of time, 7 to be an ok game, 8 to be decent and 9 being the credential to consider purchase before rental if its a genre I like.
I am sure quite a few of you also have a similer heavy tilt against scores. If GFW's 5 is worth a 7 in my books, thats going to cause a lot of confusion. Would other readers share a similar sense of confusion?
Seriously, a %50 is barely passing in any other context. %60-74% isn't much better in terms of something I want to drop $60+ on.
Riemann Lebesgue @ Nov 18th 2006 10:12PM
I received my copy in the mail a few days ago. I do not like the decision to ignore Apple and Linux games, but everything else in the magazine seems pretty normal. The review for Defcon made me drool, so I'll be picking up that game ASAP.
Paul P @ Nov 18th 2006 10:13PM
That scoring system is stupid. Our entire lives to adulthood we work on a scale where 90+ = A, 80+ = B, 70+ = C, 60+ = D, and below is a failure. Not going with that just to be different just seems stupid.
Joshua @ Nov 18th 2006 10:24PM
If its "Games for Windows" then why isn't it "Top 10 Windows Games"
Riemann Lebesgue @ Nov 18th 2006 10:31PM
I guess I'm the odd man out here, but I actually prefer rating systems that DO use the full scale. If a game is horrible, why not give it a 1, 2, or 3? Why give it a 5 or 6? What would be worth a 1 in such a universe? A game where monsters actually came off the screen and ate your firstborn?
Personally, when people ask me to rate X on a scale of 1-10 (whether it be a game, book, or a guy's body), I always explain that I'm using 5 as the average and that I feel free to use any number within the bounds set by the scale.
I also have a complaint about people who refuse to give games a 10, but instead insist on giving 9.9s (or 9s if no fractions of points are used in the ratings). If you're never going to give out a 10, then in reality your 9.9 is your 10.
To get even more off topic,... You shouldn't go just by the scores anyway. For example, I'd personally give almost every single title in the Grand Theft Auto series a 5 or lower, but if I wrote a very thorough review giving my reasons for the score, you'd know whether you agreed with my fundamental ideas concerning gaming and thus whether or not to ignore my take on the game.
OK, enough about ratings for now. Bottom line is that I like this kind of rating system better and even those who don't shouldn't be too upset because it's the content of the review, not the score, to which you should be paying the most attention.
Saan @ Nov 18th 2006 10:32PM
THis is gonna screw up press averages...
Riemann Lebesgue @ Nov 18th 2006 10:37PM
"THis is gonna screw up press averages..."
Good! Maybe then people will start paying attention to things like the content of the review, the credibility of the critic, past reviews the critic has authored, etc.
M @ Nov 19th 2006 12:12AM
You people saying "we're all sed to grades being 60% bad" don't realize that this isn't being set up as a grade. It's a scale of 1-10! I don't know what sort of school youu went to, but I certainly wasn't graded on a 10 point scale.
The 10 point scale is just an extension of the 5-star system with a little more leeway. Do you guys think of 3/5 stars as equivalent to a 60% grade? I didn't think so.
Jason @ Nov 19th 2006 2:01AM
I totally agree with Paul P. The 1-10 scale (usually a misnomer since most groups use a single decimal, making it truly 1-100) is already confusing because it is easy to compare it to the A-F school grade system (which, itself, has plenty of interpretations), and this latest re-interpretation only adds to the confusion. Personally, I'm a fan of less precision when using a score system. You make the number small, and you disassociate it with the grade scale. Not that hard really. Ideally I think a true 1-5 scale would work best for everybody. 1 and 2 are the two degrees of badness, and 3-5 are the three degrees of goodness. That's pretty much all anyone needs. It's not rocket science, as people with bell curve diagrams would like you to believe.
Nicolas @ Nov 19th 2006 4:10AM
I'm glad they gave Company of Heroes a 10/10.. Maybe that will convince people to buy this great game and play it for what it's worth.. Plus, it can't hurt the Games for Windows cause.
Dylan @ Nov 19th 2006 5:04AM
Is everyone here serious?? 5=average is the way pretty much every site's and magazine's rating system is SUPPOSED to work, the only problem is all the reviewers out there with brain damage who can't seem to escape the notion that an average game = a bad game. Can't anyone grasp the concept of "average"?!
Just Mike @ Nov 19th 2006 6:18AM
The school grade system your talking about only applies to america. It's stupid that a game is considered bad if it scores under 6. Theres ten numbers on the scale and 5 is in the middle, which makes 5 average!
WedgeTalon @ Nov 19th 2006 10:23AM
I feel sorry for al of those brain-washed into the "school grade" system.
A schools' system is completely different as they are not rating your QUALITY but your QUANTITY! See, in school, when you take a test and get on 5 out of 10 questions right, and everyone else averaged 7 out of 10 right, the average QUANTITY of questions correct is 70%, thus you scored below the average quantity.
When measuring QUALITY, it is best to used a 1-5 or 0-10 scale with 3 or 5 being average and very few things scoring on the extremities of the scale.
Griking @ Nov 19th 2006 10:36AM
Acouple of points;
#4 - CGW hasn't reviewed Apple games since the 80's and I don't even remmeber them doing a peice on Linux gaming so nothing's change in that aspect.
As for the scoring system; the numbering system didn't change. They were just pointing out that this was how they always graded games in their reviews. I think the reason they were pointing this out was because with this issue they returned to giving games a pont score which they weren't doing for the past 1/2 year or so.
Cutty @ Nov 19th 2006 3:29PM
That type of rating system is used in respected UK magazines such as GamesTM and Edge and it works fine with their reviews. The reason for this is that any game which scores a 9 in other magazines would probably receive an 8 (or even a 7) in these magazines, therefore making 8's and 9's from this magazine a rarity. In other words, if a game receives an 8 or a 9 in GamesTM or Edge you know it's going to be fantastic.