Posted January 13, 2013
I've subscribed to the Swedish one since around 1998 or 1999. I think there have been two years where I haven't been subscribed, but I don't think I've missed an issue since #21, with my first issue being #16 when Final Fantasy VII was reviewed and got 93%, as well as the first Fallout, which got 87%. Unfortunately my mom insisted I throw out everything every few years. Now, I realise Svenska PC Gamer is an independent entity, but a lot of articles are translated from the UK and US magazines, so it's still a relevant query.
These days I don't read everything in them, but every so often there'll be an exclusive article on an upcoming game that gaming news sites weren't given access to, and they have a nice sense of humour. Their reviews do tend to deviate from the norm, though, to the point that at best they'll be used to indicate games I should research closer, and they've had some really horrible reviewers over the years. I'm not talking about bias or bad taste - I'm talking about not being a writer.
One in particular stood out: at one point - for maybe half a year, I don't know - one of their layout artists did about half the reviews, and aside from the fact that she gave all the Sims 2 expansions good scores (maybe they really were that good, I don't know), she simply had no idea how to write a review. All of her reviews simply listed all the major features of the game, with no opinion about whether it worked or not, then tacked on a score at the end that never got motivated. The Burning Crusade was the worst of the lot: four pages of preview text and an 84% at the end with a completely ambiguous summary.
I don't really remember what happened to her; I think her reviews did get better, and then she moved on. Huh. Anyway, apologies for the tangent. I don't have a lot of experience with the UK and US publications, aside from knowing the names of a few of the journalists who are famous.
These days I don't read everything in them, but every so often there'll be an exclusive article on an upcoming game that gaming news sites weren't given access to, and they have a nice sense of humour. Their reviews do tend to deviate from the norm, though, to the point that at best they'll be used to indicate games I should research closer, and they've had some really horrible reviewers over the years. I'm not talking about bias or bad taste - I'm talking about not being a writer.
One in particular stood out: at one point - for maybe half a year, I don't know - one of their layout artists did about half the reviews, and aside from the fact that she gave all the Sims 2 expansions good scores (maybe they really were that good, I don't know), she simply had no idea how to write a review. All of her reviews simply listed all the major features of the game, with no opinion about whether it worked or not, then tacked on a score at the end that never got motivated. The Burning Crusade was the worst of the lot: four pages of preview text and an 84% at the end with a completely ambiguous summary.
I don't really remember what happened to her; I think her reviews did get better, and then she moved on. Huh. Anyway, apologies for the tangent. I don't have a lot of experience with the UK and US publications, aside from knowing the names of a few of the journalists who are famous.