PCGMedia is a really simple operation.
On reviewing: We believe that video-game critique isn’t merely a matter of opinion – and by extension, not everything is subjective. Whilst we admit that playing through a game is a subjective experience, you can read our reviewing policy to understand how we asses titles. The most important thing to us are the following aspects:
The games primary mechanics are the key focus point, everything else comes second.
- Did the game achieve what it set out to do? (This eliminates accusations of ‘pretentiousness’ plaguing the internet).
- How is the game mechanically? If ambitious, did it pay off? Do the core mechanics work? After that:
- If applicable, how well fleshed out is the story? If appropriate: does the depth reflect the tone, dynamic, and game-play?
- Does the cost of the game reflect the polish? For instance, we would “cut slack” on titles that cost less, but excel on the foundations or core mechanics. If AAA titles are buggy, rushed, or mechanically awkward, they would receive more criticism.
- How well does the title function within its genre, or sub-genres? Iterative titles do not necessarily mean bad titles.
- Are the micro-transactions fair, or does it turn the game into a gambling addiction? Are the micro-transactions giving anything to the experience, or are they taking things away in order to maximize profit?
- Most importantly: was title title created to sell well, then forgotten? Or created to be loved, enjoyed, and cherished.
Give as much detail as possible, as honestly as possible. If a preview presentation is unintelligible, or showing the product in a bad light, strict review must be implemented prior to publication, in order to see if, ultimately, publishing the preview materials would be in the best interests of everyone, including the gaming community.
We strive to write exciting and lengthy previews, understanding both the games developmental life so far, and the intent of the publishers or developer. Once we’ve understood the product, we’d like to discuss whether or not it has the framework to achieve what the developer had intended, ultimately elucidating on its success so far. Previews are about potential - we refuse to treat them like reviews. They are designed to illuminate, not educate.
Our news has been written to inject quick, easy to read, trustworthy information into your gaming diet. More often than not, we’ll provide some insight and analysis on the biggest stories. We dislike sensationalism, and will often deliver both sides of the coin. If original content: we never print out of context.
Our editorials have been written to provide incisive commentary and perspective on gaming issues. We often write as a retort to popular opinion, if we see it as ‘bandwagoning,’ and are known for criticizing games journalism as an industry where viable. We’re also not afraid to criticize developers and publishers for bad business ethics. We try to keep things real, and don’t subject ourselves to ‘bandwagoning’ or sensationalist hype. You can always count on us for a logical, concise discourse on all things gaming related. We also retain a creative right to swear, especially when we’re really angry, or deprived of coffee.
Terms of Service
If looking to advertise with PCGMedia, your product or site must abide by a similar ethos, protecting the interests of your readers/shoppers/community. We ensure that linked advertisements are safe, pending review.
You cannot take our work – which is our intellectual property – and reproduce it word for word in any way, shape, or form. This includes, but is not limited to: aggregate sites* mobile news sites ** blogs *** other news sites/gaming sites ****
*You’ll be contacted and asked to remove our work. We will take legal action against anyone who copies our work – even through code – even if they link directly to our site as a side note. We want discussion to be focused here, not there, and you cannot use our property to invoke discussion, and generate ad revenue off our backs.
**See above – the mobile market is not a place to go rogue.
***You’ll be contacted more personally, and asked to explain what your site is about, and why you’re using our work. We won’t attack individuals discussing our material, and we understand that more often than not it’s through admiration. These warnings are informal, and come with a hand-shake. We probably think you’re awesome, but if you want to be a dude you’ve got to abide.
****See above – news sites can use select pieces of information, including original interview material, but not the entire content. They must not by any circumstances use anything out of context - whether it is written by us, or by anyone else. If, under internal review, we believe too much has been reproduced, or anything has been taken out of context, we will come down on you like one thousand bolts of thunder through the Nordic skies. Alternatively, we’ll ask you to respect our TOS. All content must redirect your readers/audience back to our site – this includes, but is not limited to, discussions on any social media, including YouTube, Bing, or My Space (if that still even exists… that’s a thing, right?)
In posting comments, you agree to allow us to edit the comment under internal review under the following circumstances:
- The quality of your troll post was sub-par, heeding uninteresting results.
- You swore too much, and it wasn’t even that funny.
- What you’re saying is flat out inaccurate, and will likely lead to a staff member spending too much time mopping it up.
- You seem racist… you probably aren’t, but you seem it…
- Your spelling caused a grammar Nazi’s heart to bleed.
- Your comment was completely irrelevant, and it’s like you just don’t even care, man.
- You directly insult one of our team, and it lead to even more self esteem issues 10 years down the line.
- We can infer from your comment that you don’t like Battlestar Galactica.
- You appear to think Star Wars is science fiction, and not merely fantasy that just so happens to be set in space.
If you believe your comment has been edited under any of the above circumstances, you can check by searching for references to Pony’s and Unicorns. If your comment is now about Pony’s and Unicorns, it’s likely we edited it.
If you hate us and want to let us know, you can contact us on Twitter by adding @pcgmedia to a ‘Tweet’. Alternatively, you can contact the Editor by emailing him at firstname.lastname@example.org. If those options aren’t vengeful enough for you, you can lash out on Facebook with a literary whip. We take all complaints very seriously, and whilst we respect our right to an opinion for all our staff, anything that seems:
- Flat out needlessly offensive*
- Biased (for instance, if Anna is unnecessarily picking on League of Legends again.)**
*Offense is very subjective. We understand that anything we write is potentially offensive – your offensive doesn’t grant you the right to a complete removal over the relevant content, but it does grant you a right to internal review. If we decide not to remove the content, we’ll issue you with a frank and personal statement as to why. You have the right to be offended, but that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re in the right.
**We’re a multicultural team of all creeds and races. None of us are racist. If you believe something we’ve said indicates we’re racist, refer to the previous comment. Nothing we say is intended to offend anyone, and nothing will ever be said with the intent to be racist. We enjoy creative freedom, and whilst we empathize for any offense caused, please remember the context. Context is very important, and it is the foundation of understanding.
***Contact authors for complaints about their work, and they will be forwarded to me for review. We shall crush those of non-compliance.
Contact the Editor. Please note that whilst we strive for accuracy, the internet can be very convoluted. We’re of course open to straightening out information that we misrepresented, and will do so incredibly quickly, upon internal review. Anything we see as potentially inaccurate, we try to report as a rumor. If this is the case, we will not remove the information, since we have reported it within the correct context.