Talk:PC Gamer

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 (talk • contribs) 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

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}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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)[reply]

Lowest score citation[edit]

Excerpt from this article released yesterday:

"Here's the thing: I think "N/A" may, technically, be the lowest score PCG has ever given, but it also means Big Brother Series 2: The Game wasn't included in our record of reviews, so I have no idea which issue this thing got reviewed in. I only know about it from our own Wikipedia entry, which mentions that our reviewer said they had "put as much effort into reviewing it as they did in making the game.""

Do we have a source for this? Because there is no citation in the referred section. WolfmanFP (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and find one. - X201 (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. The game appears to be a real game (the reason for this doubt will be explained later) I found a page here that has a release date of July 2001. I'm struggling to find any scans of PCG (UK) from 2001. Future removed them all from the Internet Archive, so we're a bit stuck for easy access. Perhaps they could actually check their own magazine archive to see if they actually published it (more doubt. See below). I'll ask in WP:VG to see if there's any one who is willing to plough through 7 months worth of reviews to find it.
Now, why am I so doubting? Back in the day, PCG (both US and UK) thought it was wonderful japes to add fake edits and general crap to this article. So until proved otherwise, that's what I'm going to assume N/A is. There would be something ironic in them publishing as fact, a fake fact about themselves that they created though. - X201 (talk) 08:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Browsing the article's history, I found an edit war which was about the order of PCG US and UK in the article, not much else. What you're saying though could be true, although 18 years has passed since that edit, and the editor team may not be the same so nobody can remember what happened back then...
Speaking of, I found the aforementioned revisions: this one added the sentence about the N/A score, and this one specified Big Brother 2 as the worst-reviewed game. WolfmanFP (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PC_Gamer&oldid=1212128433"