Retro Gamer Issue 111 - Feedback Thread

[stvd]

Sorry, there's a real difference between an issue being "poor" and "I have no interest in what's in it".

Hmmmm, really?

If I change the post to say "Excellent issue but I had no interest in any of it", that would be silly.

[jdanddiet]

He's got a point Steve - when you say "poor" it suggests, to me anyway, that it is badly written, researched, designed and put together in general (which of course it isn't) - rather than it just doesn't have stuff in it that you're interested in. But maybe it's just semantics.

[HalcyonDaze00]

Personal opinion and all that, but one of the poorest issues for a very long time
With the exception of the "listings" article and the PC Engine piece, nothing else interested me.


Roll on next month!

indeed, have read through it all now and doubt we will see a poorer issue in the next 12 months.

[The Laird]

I would be surprised if we see a better issue in the next 12 months!

My personal highlights:

- Lode Runner article was superb, shame there was no mention of the Lynx version though.
- PC Engine article, great to see this brilliant console get more coverage!
- Listings article was just the sort of thing RG needs more of.
- I really enjoyed the Sega games article, great list and nice to see a couple of my suggestions get in there!
- Dave Perry article was really interesting, I never knew that he tried to buy Atari!

[kiwimike]

He's got a point Steve - when you say "poor" it suggests, to me anyway, that it is badly written, researched, designed and put together in general (which of course it isn't) - rather than it just doesn't have stuff in it that you're interested in. But maybe it's just semantics.

That's a fair point...some people don't like the Lord of the Rings movies, who find them long and boring. Doesn't mean to say they are rubbish simply because specific people don't like em. Each to their own. I can accept someone not liking an issue, suggesting it wasn't for them, they may be more interested in machines not featured in a particular issue- That's just going to happen. But suggesting it's a poor issue simply because it does not cater to your own specific interest IMO is disrespectful to the people that have worked on it.
Just my two cents

[ncf1]

Well said kiwimike!

[antsbull]

Whats the point of coming on the forums to be negative about the magazine in such a subjective way anyway? Seems really immature and irrelevant. Its not going to make one iota of difference, as there are obviously a lot of people who think it had great content. Calling it "poor" could mean anything and is suggesting that there is more wrong with it than simply being articles you didn't find interesting.

Constructive criticism is helpful, but just slagging it off and saying the magazine was really poor is a waste of everyones time.

Very poor form.

[Rory Milne]

Personal opinion and all that, but one of the poorest issues for a very long time
With the exception of the "listings" article and the PC Engine piece, nothing else interested me.


Roll on next month!

I just read stvd's comments as meaning that in his opinion there had been a poor choice of content this month. Granted, his first sentence was open to interpretation, but his second sentence went on to more fully explain his position.

That's just the nature of forum posts I guess, their meaning can easily be lost. But in the final analysis surely it's better to encourage feedback by cutting those who make the effort a little slack.

[CraigGrannell]

Constructive criticism is helpful, but just slagging it off and saying the magazine was really poor is a waste of everyones time.

Mm. For those of us who work on the magazine—and especially the in-house guys—we thrive on constructive comments. That goes for praise as much as criticism. We want to know why someone liked or disliked something. Generic praise is, of course, better than generic criticism, which can be demoralising, but it's always useful to get insight regarding what people thought about the issue. (Also, from a personal standpoint, I was extremely happy with the Lode Runner piece, having got all three parts of the main story—what happened before Miner, and what happened after the Japanese guys discovered the game. Such a pity James Bratsanos has no idea where his old programs are though—it would have been great to see Suicide. Thanks to those who've provided their thoughts about that feature.)

[psj3809]

Exactly not everyone has to say great issue or that (forum would be boring if we all said every issue 'everythings perfect') but just saying 'poor' doesnt tell them a lot. Was it the articles , were they written badly ? Or simply there wasnt anything it it for you this month ?

Wasnt that bad an issue for me personally, wasnt the best as there were a few articles which didnt really interest me but that happens from time to time. Enjoyed Lode Runner/PC Engine. The other articles i'll go back to at some point but initially they didnt interest me.

[stvd]

Is this better/clearer?

Personal opinion and all that, but, content-wise, one of the poorest issues for a very long time.
With the exception of the "listings" article and the PC Engine piece, nothing else interested me.

Or is it the use of the word poor? It's not like I called anyone a pleb!

I don't think my original comment read like I was "slagging off" anything. It certainly wasn't supposed to.

[Rory Milne]

I read your criticism as being about what was covered rather than how well things were covered. From my point of view that's fairly useful to know, but if you have the time to expand on why the content didn't appeal then all the better. For instance, I thought the Lode Runner piece was every bit as good as the 3D Monster Maze making of - I can't praise it any higher than that. But did you not enjoy it because you specifically don't like Apple II games, because you don't like early 80's games in general, because you don't like platformers, or for some other reason?

As I say, I'm only asking because it would be useful feedback, but I understand if you're busy.

[Darran@Retro Gamer]

Poor old stvd. It's pretty obvious from his post that he meant disappointing as opposed to poor because there's little content that interests him. No need for everyone to jump on him about it.

[The Laird]

Poor old stvd. It's pretty obvious from his post that he meant disappointing as opposed to poor because there's little content that interests him. No need for everyone to jump on him about it.

Halycondaze comment was far worse. He didn't give any feedback of any kind other than just writing it off as poor.

[Darran@Retro Gamer]

Indeed, but he rarely ever says anything positive anyway so we just ignored it

Seriously though, if people don't like an issue it's up to them. It all comes down to why you buy the mag. If you're buying it solely to read about things you personally like then it's inevitable that some issues will fall flat for you.