What I should have said was "A good review caters for a wider readership".FatTrucker wrote:I still don't really understand why 10 years down the line this has suddenly become an issue when the mag has been doing things this way since day 1 and when every other mag does things this way too and always has. What is it about this review specifically that suddenly makes it worthy of comment when the same thing can be said of so many games reviewed in RG over the years, and every other paper publication that's ever graced the newsstands?Crunchy wrote: A good review has to cater for all.
My initial reply to Darran's post came about because RG is being discussed on my own forum in a very negative way and, around the time I posted, specifically about the reviews.
Unlike you I want an informed opinion rather than a biased one when I read a review. This is actually what you normally get from a review and it's been that way for years. There's a big difference between somebody with prior knowledge providing a review and somebody who thinks a game is the best game in the last thirteen years providing a review. One is credible and the other isn't.
The main difference between us is that you see the reviews as a minor thing in the mag. They're something to read for entertainment and that's all. You feel retro gaming is a niche hobby for the chosen few, that there's actually no wider readership beyond this or even a potential wider readership available. Reviews are merely there to satisfy the old hands with a bit of light reading.
Some points then, and I expect Darran to take this as genuine feedback:
RG will fail if it doesn't increase its readership. Rising costs with a static or dwindling readership ensure this will happen.
Retro is no longer a niche hobby. The easiest way to see this is to crank up your 360 and check out the Top Downloads and Top Rated lists for XBLA.
At a time when the number of people playing old games is rapidly increasing it should be the RG name that's on people's lips when they require a review. RG is the only dedicated retro magazine on the market. A credible review section provided by acknowledged experts in the field of old games on new systems can actually be a selling point for the magazine. Compare this to the fact that after this thread I'm no longer buying the magazine. If the review section is just the editor's playground where he can indulge his loyal fans (not an impossiblity, this is the same editor who said the letters page is merely there to fill some space) or, even worse, a PR outlet for whichever company has done a deal with RG for some coverage (not my personal opinion but the opinion of others) then it's two more pages of waste on top of all the other pages I think are a waste and really, why waste my money?
I don't think RG is going to last under Darran. There's no obvious ambition. There's no recognition of where retro gaming is going, only lip service and a can't-be-arsed attempt to court it. The community on here is an inward looking one and is becoming a millstone around the magazine's neck. When you've got a moderator on the official forum saying he wants fanboy or hater reviews instead of informed opinion the place has pretty much become a censored joke. Unfortunately, the editor is a member of this community too. I foresee problems.
I'd like to see RG actually get to that 100th issue. I think Darran's done a good job getting the magazine within striking distance of that milestone. I do feel if RG continues on with the same small-minded traditional retro niche "I'm alright jack" mindset of people like you it's going to be Mission Failed before too long.