TWICE AND THRICE OVER, AS THEY SAY, GOOD IS IT TO REPEAT AND REVIEW WHAT IS GOOD

This month marks the start of the third year of existence for The Games Journal. I'm quite proud of everything that we've managed to do up to this point and hope that it will continue for a long time. Of course, this depends a lot on how much people are willing to contribute but I've already discussed that topic more than enough. I am happy to report that unsolicited contributions are being sent in although it's still at the trickle level rather than the flood that would make my job easier. Based on the web stats, our readership continues to grow every month so I hope that at some point a critical mass will be reached and those floodgates will open. We'll see.

Another bonus of our (relative) longevity is that publishers are now more responsive to requests for review copies of their games. My thanks to all the publishers that have sent items. While I prefer that our focus remain on articles, it does appear that the reviews are appreciated. In the past I've said that I wanted reviews to concentrate more on overlooked items but there's a problem with this approach and that's that it's difficult to get people to write about such games. As it's already hard to get reviewers for the latest and greatest release, finding reviewers for older titles is even more difficult. So, while I'd still like to run reviews on more obscure games this ideal may have to be shelved for the moment. Thoughts?

-Greg Aleknevicus

Think you know what the above figure is supposed to be? If you like trying to figure it out, you might enjoy Klaus Teuber's Barbarossa. Read Richard Huzzey's review for all the details.

More...

Horizontal line

About | Link to Archives | Links | Search | Contributors | Home

All content 2000-2006 the respective authors or The Games Journal unless otherwise noted.

http://www.thegamesjournal.com/