Issue 73 feedback

[ToxieDogg]

Great issue again, BUT.....(puts Toxie Trainspotter Award specs on again)

The Dan Dare screenshot at the bottom of page 65 looks suspiciously like the Speccy version, not the C64 version to me

And at the end of the Colecovision games feature (the 'and the rest' bit) on pages 76-77, game number 20 looks a heck of a lot more like a port of Konami's Horror Maze than 'Tournament Tennis' to me

Nothing that makes me want to cancel my subscription though. I really liked the Simon article. The significance of Ralph Baer himself asides, I thought it was completely relevant to the mag. I wouldn't like to suddenly see regular articles about board games or anything like that (although I wouldn't mind one-offs...and maybe a closer look at board games based on videogames like Pac-Man and Donkey Kong) but Simon is an electronic game and quite obviously has connections to the 'proper' gaming systems of it's era. I think so anyway.

At any rate, I think Paul Drury did a good job with it.

[Darran@Retro Gamer]

Great issue again, BUT.....(puts Toxie Trainspotter Award specs on again)

The Dan Dare screenshot at the bottom of page 65 looks suspiciously like the Speccy version, not the C64 version to me

It was swapped out at the very last minute. I meant to change the caption, but I went off to have a cup of tea and forgot about it.

As for the and the rest, I'm betting it's an old template from a previous issue that was missed.

[Timothy Lumsden]

this is what happens when they abolish lackeys - you see your tea should be brought to you.

[Ash]

The only thing that annoys me is calling things by the wrong name. In the Driver article it said that Rockstar North made Driver - DMA Design (the top Amiga developers who made Lemmings) made it, that only recently changed name.

You're both wrong. Driver was made by Reflections.

[kiwimike]

Well Said, and completely agree with you. Simon is relevant to the mag-Not saying it is any more relevant than other tabletops like Astro Wars (who deserve coverage as well),but to dis it as not part of what the Mag is about- Retro Games- Is quite snobby IMO. I loved the old Simon, have good nostalgic memories of it

Oh well, in that case I had an old Pacman lunch box and my friend had a Mario one (his one had a flask too)..
Perhaps we can have a making of feature of those, after all they are clearly connected to video games and have other things in common with the great consoles of the time such as they were both made on a production line, both made of plastic.. The List goes on..

If I wanted to read about toys I'd by a magazine that featured toys, I want a magazine about Video Games which is why I subscribe to Retro Gamer..

I'd love to see arcticles regarding the proper table top games as others have mentioned, yes it might be hard reseaching the facts and trying to find out as much info as you can regarding them, but thats what we buy the magazine for, thats what would make the article worth reading, but if you can't be bothered because it might be a "bit hard" hunting down the people involved there are still plenty of other real video games we could read about..

A little O.T.T really, I don't know how you make the leap from a classic tabletop electronic game to lunch box, but opinions are never right or wrong, they're just opinions... I find it hard to accept though that you see no place for Simon as a mere 'toy', but are happy for other tabletop games of the era to be in the mag, as they are 'Proper' games? Brings me back to the snobbism point IMO.
I think I read earlier through the topics someone comparing it to guitar hero, and knocking those too. But-Like it or not those guitar games, incredibly popular, in a few years will be retro games themselves. They will deserve a place in a Retrogamer mag in 2020! As will the dance/rythm games...and so on.
So what is it about Simon that does not justify it's place in the mag? Is it the tabletop game aspect (although others are happy with 'Proper' tabletops in there!), is it the limited gameplay (In which case laserdisc games like Dragons Lair and Mad Dog can get ****ed too?! ). Is it the aspect of no screen/visuals in the videogame sense? In which case I'll wind everyone up by calling for Computer Battleship to make an appearance!
Sorry. I'm simply being Devils advocate here. I respect the views that many didn't like the feature, I personally really enjoyed it- And the fact is that all these tabletop games, handhelds, LCD/LEDs etc from this era were TOYs! All of them! And to me Simon deserves it's place in the mag just as much as the others of the era.

[kiwimike]

Yeah, I know what you are saying psj, and agree that seeing regular content like that may be a little off putting to some. But I think as an occasional thing, it is absolutely fine. Not sure the likes of operation or monopoly would fit in like Simon did. As for the pinball issue - I've never liked pinball machines - but having the article in the mag really didn't concern me in the slightest.

I agree completely, and TBH hate Pinball! Probably cos I suck at it. But don't have a prob with it in the mag- I'm sure there's many that enjoyed the feature, and I like looking at the designs/artwork on the machines even if not overly interested in them.
Back on Simon, I do understand why the controversay, but I do feel it is really a bit extreme the venom towards it. To be fair, there are probably valid arguements both for and against it's inclusion, but my vote is that the game is relevant in game history, and a well written and welcome addition to the issue.
Each to their own of course.

[Opa-Opa]

If Retro gamer fills it's pages with toys rather than video games it will lose readers/Subscribers, its as simple as that.

Someone mentioned the Simon article was like something out of one of boyos pamphlets and look what happened to that, no-one is interested in a "jack of all trades" magazine with bits of this and bits of that covering alsorts of rubbish just because we remember it from our childhood.

Many of you seem to be missing the fact that the creator of Simon is one of the most significant figures in the history of the video game industry.

^^ This. This about a billion times.

Many of you seem to be missing the fact we already had Feature on the creator of Simon in a previous issue, this article wasn't about Ralph Baer, it was about a rubbish toy.
Maybe if we can't have my lunchbox idea (don't see why not, seems as connected to video games as simon is..?) we should start covering the playing cards Nintendo made in their early days..
Bet that would be a great use of 6 pages that would normaly only be wasted on video games..

[Darran@Retro Gamer]

If Retro gamer fills it's pages with toys rather than video games it will lose readers/Subscribers, its as simple as that.

Someone mentioned the Simon article was like something out of one of boyos pamphlets and look what happened to that, no-one is interested in a "jack of all trades" magazine with bits of this and bits of that covering alsorts of rubbish just because we remember it from our childhood.

Many of you seem to be missing the fact that the creator of Simon is one of the most significant figures in the history of the video game industry.

^^ This. This about a billion times.

Many of you seem to be missing the fact we already had Feature on the creator of Simon in a previous issue, this article wasn't about Ralph Baer, it was about a rubbish toy.
Maybe if we can't have my lunchbox idea (don't see why not, seems as connected to video games as simon is..?) we should start covering the playing cards Nintendo made in their early days..
Bet that would be a great use of 6 pages that would normaly only be wasted on video games..

I appreciate your concern Opa-Opa but you are being a little over-the-top, as you're going on as if RG is beginning to turn into a different mag. It isn't.

If we started turning the mag into retro fusion, then yes, your concerns might have justification. But we're not.

I've been doing this gig for quite a while now and I know what I'm doing. I'm not going to turn RG into an I love the 80s mag. When a genuinely interesting article gets pitched however, even if the link to games is rather tenuous, I'll have no problems considering it.

[kiwimike]

Nothing wrong with a healthy debate! At least it shows passion for the mag from both sides of the arguement! And I do see both sides of this arguement (although still fail to see why the Simon game is any more of a 'Toy' than other stand alone electronic games).
Perhaps we should make a Poll out of this topic, whether an occasional feature on something like Simon is something readers appreciate or not?

IMO this debate could be just as hotly debated as the 'What is Retro' one...where do you draw the line at what constitutes a 'Retro Game?' Do you only include video games (as in a screen with a moving image), or do you include electronic games (which would include the likes of Computer Battleship and so on)? Do you include a retro puzzle like Rubics as a retro game? Do you include the early mattel handhelds like 'Auto Race' which didn't have video screens but blinking LEDs? Do you include things like the Old Casio MG880, the 'Numbers invaders' calculator?
To me, The Simon game is a worthy addition in the early handhelds. Whoever agrees with me is right
Seriously, when it comes to it, who gives a ****?! There are equal arguements for and against-You can't please all the people all the time-and that's always a tough balance.

As for the lunchbox idea...when it plays a game...Cool!

[necronom]

The only thing that annoys me is calling things by the wrong name. In the Driver article it said that Rockstar North made Driver - DMA Design (the top Amiga developers who made Lemmings) made it, that only recently changed name.

You're both wrong. Driver was made by Reflections.

You spotted that, did you? Earlier this morning I thought I might have mistakenly said that, so I just checked and I had, so I edited my post, then saw your reply

I was in a slight rant mode, which usually results in mistakes.

[Stuart@retrogamer]

The only thing that annoys me is calling things by the wrong name. In the Driver article it said that Rockstar North made Driver - DMA Design (the top Amiga developers who made Lemmings) made it, that only recently changed name.

You're both wrong. Driver was made by Reflections.

You spotted that, did you? Earlier this morning I thought I might have mistakenly said that, so I just checked and I had, so I edited my post, then saw your reply

I was in a slight rant mode, which usually results in mistakes.

Fair enough, but unless I missed something the article doesn't state anything of the sort. The only GTA reference mentions that Driver was very likely an influence on the 3D direction GTA took, and the similarities between the franchises spawned a good humoured rivalry between their 'respective developers' (see a box out, which then lists the examples - all of course occurring after the DMA days).

I will also add that Rare currently owns the Sabreman character.

[HalcyonDaze00]

My copy just arrived this morning.

The cover is one of the best and I was thrilled to see Crude Buster getting a little feature, I loved playing this in the arcades when I was a kid.

I had to read the Simon article first just because it's been mentioned so much in this thread, and it's a good piece, I haven't got a problem with it being in the mag. I think as a one off it works and it's got to be better than 4 pages of Beach Head - Lets All Play............

[Darran@Retro Gamer]

it's got to be better than 4 pages of Beach Head - Lets All Play............

I snorted tea when I read that

[necronom]

Fair enough, but unless I missed something the article doesn't state anything of the sort. The only GTA reference mentions that Driver was very likely an influence on the 3D direction GTA took, and the similarities between the franchises spawned a good humoured rivalry between their 'respective developers' (see a box out, which then lists the examples - all of course occurring after the DMA days).

I will also add that Rare currently owns the Sabreman character.

I think it was in the boxout that it says Rockstar North did GTA III. I don't have it with me to check, but I think it says "Rockstar North" twice there and it possibly doesn't mention DMA Design at all (which is what they were called when they made it, and is the "Retro" name that most people would be familiar with from the Amiga days).

It was a good read, and I don't like criticizing much as I love the mag, but if I'm only mentioning small things like this, then you must be doing a good job

I see what you mean about Rare owning the character, but "Rare" didn't make Sabreman, and many people who had the game will wonder what you are talking about, as they will remember Ultimate making it.

[Duddyroar]

Rare and Ultimate are the same company though.

It's kinda like bitching about people calling a Snickers "Marathon". Or vice versa.