Retro Gamer Now X-rated

Want to air your opinions on the latest issue of Retro Gamer? Step inside...

Moderators: mknott, NickThorpe, lcarlson, Darran@Retro Gamer, MMohammed

User avatar
sparky
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:48 am
Location: Northamptonshire
Contact:

Post by sparky » Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:09 am

I don't have any problems with 'Porn' mags advertising 'Porn', but what I don't like is reading a publication that is generally aimed at any age group, only to flick the page to find 'Chat with the hottest girls'.
It's tasteless ignorance and serves no purpose in a mag such as RG.

It pisses me right of when people quote 'don't read if you don't like', why don't people use that locked part of their brain called 'common sense', I'm sure I know the differences between 'offensive' and 'acceptable'.

The problem is we see these types of adverts as acceptable compared to 20 years ago.
Image

Weblaus
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:01 pm
Location: Germany

Re:

Post by Weblaus » Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:26 am

You know, I honestly find that discussion hilarious, especially after recently having bought the Retro Anthology Vol. 2 with its oh-so-funny swipes against German regulations (and Germans in general, at that) regarding game content etc. (supposedly bestiality is okay over here, we're high on BDSM and we ban World War content because we lost - Mr. Author of that article, you're a fuckhead).

If you're having trouble with the rather harmless stuff found in Retro Gamer or games TM (judging from what I saw scanning through recent issues), I pray you never have to see anything published over here or to get a glimpse of what our TV stations show at night - though I'm unaware that our children have turned out noticably worse just because they might have seen a nipple or two before the turn 18.

I'm completely puzzled how anybody really can consider magazines like Stuff, FHM, Maxim etc. to be problematic or even pornography - I suppose you don't let your children watch Baywatch either (or visit places like a bath where people tend to wear less than full-body armor)?

Any yes, I believe it's the parents' responsibility to teach their children not to call these overprized numbers - if the kid is old enough to understand the content of RG, he should be old enough to understand that as well. Arguing otherwise is exactly the same thing German politicians tend to do about violent games...

User avatar
Darran@Retro Gamer
Posts: 6773
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 11:34 am
Location: Bournemouth
Contact:

Re:

Post by Darran@Retro Gamer » Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:29 am

sparky wrote:
Darran@Retro Gamer wrote:they do cheapen the mag (and cost a small fortune).
That equates to virtually every other magazine out there then. It seems that as long as there is justifiable reason to place this type of article in publications, it's "stuff everybody" regardless of their age.

I think we all know it's all about money at the end of the day.
When I said cost a small fortune, I meant to call :wink: . I've no idea how much they bring in to the company
Image

User avatar
Atari 800
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:56 am
Location: Doon the river @ N shields

Re:

Post by Atari 800 » Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:31 am

sparky wrote:I don't have any problems with 'Porn' mags advertising 'Porn', but what I don't like is reading a publication that is generally aimed at any age group, only to flick the page to find 'Chat with the hottest girls'.
It's tasteless ignorance and serves no purpose in a mag such as RG.

It pisses me right of when people quote 'don't read if you don't like', why don't people use that locked part of their brain called 'common sense', I'm sure I know the differences between 'offensive' and 'acceptable'.

The problem is we see these types of adverts as acceptable compared to 20 years ago.
tell me, why in that locked part of your brain called 'common sense', is it offensive to see females advertising a sex product but not the obvious "pisses me right of" bad language?

User avatar
Opa-Opa
Posts: 4304
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re:

Post by Opa-Opa » Sun Apr 16, 2006 7:48 am

Weblaus wrote:Any yes, I believe it's the parents' responsibility to teach their children not to call these overprized numbers - if the kid is old enough to understand the content of RG, he should be old enough to understand that as well. Arguing otherwise is exactly the same thing German politicians tend to do about violent games...
Sounds to me like you don't have children.

We are not talking about the kids ringing the numbers, we are talking about the advert being there in the first place, showing women as sex objects in a place where children could easy be exposed to it and being out of content with the rest of the magazine..

As far as I can tell you (Weblaus) were the only person to think the german article was rasist and now you start being abusive to the person who wrote it, F'ing and Jeffing all over the place wont make people think you might have a valid point but rather that you are a bitter person who took offence to an article when no-one else did and wont let it go...

User avatar
Atari 800
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:56 am
Location: Doon the river @ N shields

Re:

Post by Atari 800 » Sun Apr 16, 2006 8:09 am

Opa-Opa wrote: Parental responsibility has nothing to do with this discusion.
it became part of the discussion the moment someone mentioned that they have a kid that likes to read the mag. they have shown that they are aware of the ads and can then stop the kid/kids from seeing them.

Walaa, the mag gets much needed revenue, the parent gets his mag and the kids get to see the bits mummy and daddy feel they are of an age to read.

Weblaus
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:01 pm
Location: Germany

Re:

Post by Weblaus » Sun Apr 16, 2006 8:32 am

Opa-Opa wrote:Sounds to me like you don't have children.
Indeed, I only have nephews so far. But since I'm their main source for all things gaming, I'm well aware what responsibility means. And so far, they're growing up to be fine kids despite having seen naked women already.
We are not talking about the kids ringing the numbers, we are talking about the advert being there in the first place, showing women as sex objects in a place where children could easy be exposed to it and being out of content with the rest of the magazine..
Like I said, I hope your kids aren't allowed to watch Baywatch or similar programs if you qualify things like T3 covers or the incredibly harmless ad in the current RG as depiction of sex objects. Personally I believe that kids who are interested in 20-year-old games should clearly be intelligent enough to understand that women are human beings as well independent of how many clothes the wear - especially when tehre are parents around to explain this.

By the way, you could as easily complain about there being a Rogue Trooper ad on the back of the magazine, since that's the sort of game (i.e. lots of shooting and violence, see the 16+ rating) a young child shouldn't necessarily be exposed to, yet I don't see that happening.. is this better just because it's "in content" with the magazine?
As far as I can tell you (Weblaus) were the only person to think the german article was rasist and now you start being abusive to the person who wrote it, F'ing and Jeffing all over the place wont make people think you might have a valid point but rather that you are a bitter person who took offence to an article when no-one else did and wont let it go...
I'm not talking about the Global Gaming article, that's a different story. And yes, I'm somewhat bitter that it's apparently okay to censored on Germans all the time due to our unfortunate history. Heck, even your own royality spawn thinks it's incredibly funny to dress up as a Nazi. I don't think I have to be enthusiastic about articles that describes the whole population rather unfavourably and ends in "Oh, and never move to Germany" - that's apiss-poor failed attempt at humour at best. No doubt I'm pretty much the only person here to feel that way, how many other Germans do you see around here usually?

User avatar
paranoid marvin
Posts: 14272
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2006 6:28 pm
Location: 21st Century Earth

Post by paranoid marvin » Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:14 am

I think what we're trying to say isthat advertising should relate to the
subject matter in the mag
I would expect to see chatlines in a lads mag
I wouldnt think they bear any relationship to the subect matter
in a retro-computer mag

Having said that ,the adverts aren't nearly as bad as they could have been
The pictures aren't pornographic (we only see a naked arm!) and I wouldn't say that paying to chat to girls is particularly deamining to women

I just hope this doesn't open the floodgates to the kind of 'adverts' that are found in lads mags
Mr Flibble says...
"Game over , boys!"

User avatar
sparky
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:48 am
Location: Northamptonshire
Contact:

Re:

Post by sparky » Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:17 am

Atari 800 wrote:tell me, why in that locked part of your brain called 'common sense', is it offensive to see females advertising a sex product but not the obvious "pisses me right of" bad language?
Errm, you got me there and you're quite right. It's good that the little part of your brain pointed that out.
Last edited by sparky on Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image

User avatar
SirClive
Posts: 20261
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:25 pm
Location: Planet Sinclair
Contact:

Re: RE:

Post by SirClive » Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:17 am

Dudley wrote:And sirclive, your opinon is interesting given your sig. (not withstanding the hillarious grammar mistake, it could also be considered degrading)
The grammar police are certainly in force on this forum :wink:

I don't see how the quote on my sig can be considered degrading. I assume you are refering to 'the girl's gorgeous'. Unless it is 'the girl' instead of using a name I am not sure where it could offend?
Image

User avatar
Opa-Opa
Posts: 4304
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re:

Post by Opa-Opa » Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:23 am

Weblaus wrote: Heck, even your own royality spawn thinks it's incredibly funny to dress up as a Nazi.
Would you be talking about our royality spawn who have a german heritage by any chance...? If you can't wear the family uniform to a fancy dress party whats the world coming to :)

User avatar
Ash
Posts: 624
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 4:52 am
Location: Bournemouth
Contact:

Re:

Post by Ash » Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:29 am

Weblaus wrote:You know, I honestly find that discussion hilarious, especially after recently having bought the Retro Anthology Vol. 2 with its oh-so-funny swipes against German regulations (and Germans in general, at that) regarding game content etc. (supposedly bestiality is okay over here, we're high on BDSM and we ban World War content because we lost - Mr. Author of that article, you're a fuckhead).

If you're having trouble with the rather harmless stuff found in Retro Gamer or games TM (judging from what I saw scanning through recent issues), I pray you never have to see anything published over here or to get a glimpse of what our TV stations show at night - though I'm unaware that our children have turned out noticably worse just because they might have seen a nipple or two before the turn 18.

I'm completely puzzled how anybody really can consider magazines like Stuff, FHM, Maxim etc. to be problematic or even pornography - I suppose you don't let your children watch Baywatch either (or visit places like a bath where people tend to wear less than full-body armor)?

Any yes, I believe it's the parents' responsibility to teach their children not to call these overprized numbers - if the kid is old enough to understand the content of RG, he should be old enough to understand that as well. Arguing otherwise is exactly the same thing German politicians tend to do about violent games...
Well there's an argument that "soft core imagery" is more damaging to an influential mind than "real, hardcore" stuff but that's following an academic path that I can't be bothered to tread right now.

I do agree with your comments on the "Lost in Translation" feature though. I found it pretty offensive in places.

User avatar
Crunchy
Posts: 2123
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:43 am
Location: Claymorgue Castle

Post by Crunchy » Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:36 am

What a great thread. :D

I don't mind seeing ads for chatlines. They don't offend me.
The thing about ads like this is that they're the bottom end of the ad revenue market, aren't they? Lad's mags feature them as a matter of course. No problem there that I can see. When a respectable mag like RG has them in though it looks a bit desperate. A bit last ditch. A bit "money from anywhere and we don't care". It definitely lowers the tone somewhat. How long before we get a few penis enlargement ads, then?
Interesting to see RG grubbing about among the smutty ads business. The subscriptions still haven't picked up then, eh? :lol:

User avatar
sparky
Posts: 112
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 7:48 am
Location: Northamptonshire
Contact:

Re:

Post by sparky » Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:43 am

Weblaus wrote:Any yes, I believe it's the parents' responsibility to teach their children not to call these overprized numbers - if the kid is old enough to understand the content of RG, he should be old enough to understand that as well. Arguing otherwise is exactly the same thing German politicians tend to do about violent games...
No, it's the parents responsibilty to teach their children 'responsibility' :?

Right, I'm off to take my 3 & 5 year olds to a porn convention. It's amazing what you'll find down the grandparents.
Image

Weblaus
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:01 pm
Location: Germany

Re:

Post by Weblaus » Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:56 am

Ash wrote:I do agree with your comments on the "Lost in Translation" feature though. I found it pretty offensive in places.
Thank you. It's nice to see that I'm not completely alone on this.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests