Looks like it's a website only. Did you see where it says anything about a magazine, because that'd rock.
Welp:
Quote:
Future Network USA has no current plans to launch a print version of Next Generation. The company currently publishes the following market-leading games publications in the USA: Official Xbox Magazine, PC Gamer and PSM: 100% Independent PlayStation 2 Magazine.
Drats, but this could still be cool.
__________________ "By consent of the whole company, when only males are present, it is still permissible, in good society, to remove the embargo on the fundamental sigh." - Mark Twain
Their reviews were horrible. The mag's best aspect were the articles. Gamefan had and always probably will have the best reviews, ie...artwork, layout.
__________________
Finished Games of '09 nothing at this time
__________________ "By consent of the whole company, when only males are present, it is still permissible, in good society, to remove the embargo on the fundamental sigh." - Mark Twain
They're still some of the best gaming interviews done. A website with those kind of hard-hitting interviews would raise the bar for website interviews, which are currently horrid.
__________________
matthewgood fan lupin III fan
Knowledge is power, entertainment is temporary.
I wasn't a big fan of their reviews at all... they always felt like graphics whores to me.
I bought the odd Next Gen here and there, but I don't think I read enough to see what made them the best in the biz. I definitely liked GameFan better, but hey, I was stupid when I was younger.
__________________
HA! HA! I AM USING THE INTERNET!!1
Reviews in NextGen were just something to glance through, the real point to buying an issue was all the stuff that came before. I generally got my issue's worth of entertainment out of it.
If this web site is worth reading, great. Thing is, NextGen is dead. They can do what they want with the name, I suppose, but the magazine has been dead for several years now and launching a new site with the name doesn't make it the old magazine.
If this web site is worth reading, great. Thing is, NextGen is dead. They can do what they want with the name, I suppose, but the magazine has been dead for several years now and launching a new site with the name doesn't make it the old magazine.
I don't personally recognize the names, but a few guys at work say it's the same crew that ran Next-Gen Online back in the day before Daily Radar.
__________________ "By consent of the whole company, when only males are present, it is still permissible, in good society, to remove the embargo on the fundamental sigh." - Mark Twain
This is the best news to happen in videogaming all year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NG.com
Next Generation's editor-in-chief is Colin Campbell. The site's consultant editor is Christian Svensson. Both co-created the original Next Generation Online in 1995.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James
Reviews in NextGen were just something to glance through, the real point to buying an issue was all the stuff that came before. I generally got my issue's worth of entertainment out of it.
The reviews said everything a person needed to know about the game: whether it was worth your time and money or not. No fucking 6 page sprawls, annoying click through marijuana leaf ads, and awful, high school quality writing. The same goes for GameFan, which was shit too.
__________________
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
- Dom Helder Camara
I always thought the reviews were pretty superficial. It often felt like everything was measured against big budget releases. So if the graphics weren't as detailed as Metal Gear, regardless of the quality of art direction, then they were knocked.
But the editorial content was second to none, and if they can keep the same tone, this is a very good thing.
So if the graphics weren't as detailed as Metal Gear, regardless of the quality of art direction, then they were knocked.
I believe that they valued innovation and bold game design more than anything else. Thats why Neo Geo games never got over 4 stars, because every game on the platform was either a generic 2D fighter (lets face it, it was) or a generic 2D shooter. Different levels of competence, perhaps, but again, thats not what NG valued. They purposely awarded games that moved game design forward. I just pulled a random old NG off my shelf and saw that they gave Nanotek Warrior and Rocket Jockey 4 stars, for example, and neither of those games were top-shelf production value type stuff.
__________________
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
- Dom Helder Camara
Next Gen gave friggin' Turok 2 a perfect score. I hated their reviews. They were excellent for interviews and various other info. I liked how they combined console, arcade, and computer gaming although the downside is that there were often many games they didn't cover at all. At least with EGM or Gamefan they covered virtually everything coming out, for consoles anyway.
I dunno, nine times out of ten it seemed to me they were only really interested in a game if it had better graphics than the last one. They really did seem to value visuals and technology tricks in general over solid game design. And they usually had no time for anything that was a solid genre entry - fighters, shooters, what have you.
But they were cool because they could get an interview with anyone, and asked them grownup questions.
i dunno, "the way games ought to be..." articles (the later bunch anyway, when
they changed writers) never did sit well with me. The Interviews were nice...
i remember reading that crazy one where Kelly Flock made fun of the
madden crew and the then popular "liquid AI". the Trip Hawkins
interview was fun too.
I dunno, nine times out of ten it seemed to me they were only really interested in a game if it had better graphics than the last one.
Uhh... well, it seems to me that you are wrong.
Quote:
And they usually had no time for anything that was a solid genre entry - fighters, shooters, what have you.
They really didnt have any time for those games, and it wasnt a secret, they said it countless times in their letters section. Like I said they were looking for innovative, bold games, and they probably hated uninspired-but-competent games more than anything else (even more than just bad games).
This doesnt mean that it was all rosy, though. They didnt really care for a game like Guardian Heroes because they were fairly enamored with 3D (but they did give games like Rayman, Worms, Castlevania:SOTN, and The Last Express great scores), but IMO the end justified the means, they just wanted to see gaming advance.
__________________
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
- Dom Helder Camara
i dunno, "the way games ought to be..." articles (the later bunch anyway, when
they changed writers) never did sit well with me. The Interviews were nice...
i remember reading that crazy one where Kelly Flock made fun of the
madden crew and the then popular "liquid AI". the Trip Hawkins
interview was fun too.
That Kelly Flock interview really was the absolute best thing I have ever--EVER--read in video game journalism.
__________________ "By consent of the whole company, when only males are present, it is still permissible, in good society, to remove the embargo on the fundamental sigh." - Mark Twain
The reviews said everything a person needed to know about the game: whether it was worth your time and money or not.
Can't argue that, their reviews were to the point and all, but my opinion of what's great and theirs differed often enough that I couldn't use their opinion to help me make a gaming purchase. I'm not going to argue whether a game deserved 4 or 5 stars, but when they gave games I really liked three or less (and Turok 2 5 stars?)then it's pretty obvious that my views on good gaming and theirs don't match up in a way that makes their reviews any help to me.
It's the original online editors doing the new NextGen site? I've got to admit, my opinion of them just went up a few notches.
i hate 1-5 ratings/reviews. it reminds me of techTV reviews which used to piss me off.The difference between 4/5 and 90/100 is not the same! i much rather 1-10 reviews(ofcourse 10 being the highest number)
James, not to put too fine a point on it, but you like a lot of stupid garbage. Im really not surprised Next Gen's opinions didnt gel with yours. But even if I dont agree with a reviewer's opinion, I still respect them as long as they stick to their guns and have a clear vision of what they think is worthwhile and not. IGN, EGM, etc., they dont have that clear vision, NG did though.
__________________
"When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist."
- Dom Helder Camara
NG's approach to game reviews was correct. Pretty much every other game review reads like a Car&Driver review...what's under the hood, how it handles, whether it's worth my money. That's great. If games are just going to be a hobby.
If gaming is to become an art, reviews should resemble this.
__________________ 2009 TNL Fantasy Football Champion
What part of Halo, Counter-Strike, Doom, Tony Hawk, Street Fighter or Sonic meets this criteria?
An artful hobby? Pardon, but what the heck is that? Art has something useful to say about the human condition. Until videogames start doing that, they are nothing more than diversions.
__________________ 2009 TNL Fantasy Football Champion
I can say a game is beautiful. It looks beautiful, sounds beautiful, is put together beautifully, etc. I don't need an external review to validate that (maybe you do).
"Art has something useful to say about the human condition"
I don't see that anywhere in any definition.
__________________ "By consent of the whole company, when only males are present, it is still permissible, in good society, to remove the embargo on the fundamental sigh." - Mark Twain
Just because something is beautiful doesn't make it art.
If you want to argue that something doesn't have to shed light on what it means to be human in order for it to be considered art...well...be my guest. You'll be left arguing that Tic-Tac-Toe is art but don't let that stop you.
If I remember correctly (looks it up), I think it was Trevor Bell that said, "Art condenses the experience we all have as human beings, and, by forming it, makes it significant."
__________________ 2009 TNL Fantasy Football Champion
Trevor Bell isn't Merriam, Webster, or the rest of society though. And even so, games can fit that criteria.
edit: and he is standing next to a piece of crap...I bet that says a lot about the human experience.
I used to deride things I didn't (attempt to) understand. Then I grew up. But I won't discourage you from arguing abstract art is not really art. It will be hard to take you seriously, but go ahead.
You've just made an appeal to the larger society for deciding what is (and what is not) art. If (part) of what makes something art is whether society accepts it as art, videogames are emphatically NOT art. They are playthings. Toys. Even tools. But not art.
__________________ 2009 TNL Fantasy Football Champion
Joust is saying art is a broad category, not one that excludes. At least I think so.
__________________ "By consent of the whole company, when only males are present, it is still permissible, in good society, to remove the embargo on the fundamental sigh." - Mark Twain
Oh great, a "what is art" debate. These are always fun.
Architechture, on the whole, generally doesn't have much to say about the human condition. However, that doesn't mean it's not art.
Piercing dissonance isn't particularly beautiful, but that doesn't mean it can't be art.
Sorry, but claiming that all of videogames are not art because of Tony Hawk, Sonic, et al is like claiming that music isn't art because commercial jingles exist. The existence of commercial products does not preclude the existence of art within the same medium. And since no two people agree on what "art" actually is in the first place, it's a meaningless debate.
Oh great, a "what is art" debate. These are always fun.
Architechture, on the whole, generally doesn't have much to say about the human condition. However, that doesn't mean it's not art.
Piercing dissonance isn't particularly beautiful, but that doesn't mean it can't be art.
Sorry, but claiming that all of videogames are not art because of Tony Hawk, Sonic, et al is like claiming that music isn't art because commercial jingles exist. The existence of commercial products does not preclude the existence of art within the same medium. And since no two people agree on what "art" actually is in the first place, it's a meaningless debate.
Architechture, on the whole, generally doesn't have much to say about the human condition.
Architecture has plenty to say about mankind's place in nature and the individual's place in society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
Sorry, but claiming that all of videogames are not art because of Tony Hawk, Sonic, et al is like claiming that music isn't art because commercial jingles exist.
Give me an example of a videogame that is art (there are a handful that have come dangerously close).
__________________ 2009 TNL Fantasy Football Champion
Video games I've played recently that have artistic qualities:
ICO, Rez, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Gran Turismo 4, Killzone, Metal Gear Solid 1/2/3, Zone of the Enders, Siren, Street Fighter 3, Metroid Prime 1/2, Zelda Wind Waker, DOOM 3, Legend/Sword of Mana...
__________________ "By consent of the whole company, when only males are present, it is still permissible, in good society, to remove the embargo on the fundamental sigh." - Mark Twain
Architecture has plenty to say about mankind's place in nature and the individual's place in society.
Videogames have plenty to say about mankind's competitive nature and our neverending struggle to acheive complete mastery of our surroundings.
^________^
Quote:
Give me an example of a videogame that is art (there are a handful that have come dangerously close).
I can't, because we haven't actually definied what art is yet. Personally, I consider Ico, Syberia, Planescape, Ikaruga, THHGTTG (text adventure), etc. to be art to varying degrees. But then, there are those who think "art" is defined by the creator, and those who think it's defined by the observer. There are those who think it's defined by the form (in visual art, this would be the actual colors, shapes, etc) and those who think it's defined by what the form conveys.
Define what art actually is, in a manner that everyone agrees with, and then we'll talk. Until then, it's just arguing in circles about something that we don't even define similarly.
I think it's a matter of whether or not I want to pay 4.99 an issue to read one's blatherings about the epiphany on life he had while playing Wipeout Pure.
I could give a shit less.
__________________
"Chuy, you're going to have a magical life. Because no matter where you go, it's always going to be better than Tucson."
-white-center-(small).jpg)
