Those ads... again

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

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

Post Reply
User avatar
The Master
Posts: 7252
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:01 pm
Location: the isle of everywhere

Post by The Master » Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:05 pm

I was really looking forward to seeing these ads after all the fuss, but having finally seen the latest issue, I can't help but think... wtf?

Utini
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: The Kessel System

Post by Utini » Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:41 pm

CraigGrannell wrote:It is funny how desensitised everyone in the UK and USA seems to be towards violence, but how prudish we are towards sex.
Good Lord, Man, it's just not cricket is it! If a chap wants to go off and shoot natives in mumbo jumbo land, that's absolutely fine, but we don't want to see his John Thomas while he's about it, now, do we? No, natives are for shooting, John Thomases are for keeping under wraps!
Hey, Sweden!
They're not Swedish Mac, they're Norwegian!

User avatar
andrew_rollings
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:24 am
Contact:

Post by andrew_rollings » Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:59 pm

CraigGrannell wrote:It is funny how desensitised everyone in the UK and USA seems to be towards violence, but how prudish we are towards sex. .
I'm actually more the reverse (although I've had to assimilate into the local culture in the States somewhat, so I'm more aware of others' prudishness about sex).
However, there's sex, and then there's dirty, slutty, treat-me-like-a-censored-because-I'm-just-an-object sex. Although I can understand why some want to 'protect' young children from the former, I really don't want to have my son growing up with the idea that women are just objects, which is effectively what those ads promote.
Which is why I don't let him read the magazine :)

Edit: It's ironic that the forums automatically censored the word "wh0re" in the above paragraph, considering the discussion at hand ;)

Andrew

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8712
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Dudley » Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:09 pm

stvd wrote:
Dudley wrote:Well exactly. If the Ghouls and Ghosts cover is suitable, the f-ing ads are.
Bollocks.

The cover is relating to the content of the magazine.
Why does that make it or more less suitable for an age group?

By that token you'd show the 3 year old a proper porno because it relates to the content of the film.
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

User avatar
felgekarp
Posts: 9351
Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 11:47 am
Location: Earth 3

Post by felgekarp » Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:33 pm

CraigGrannell wrote:It is funny how desensitised everyone in the UK and USA seems to be towards violence, but how prudish we are towards sex. Now, I'm NOT condoning some of the adverts in the latest Retro Gamer, but the entire scenario has reminded me of a visit to France I had when I was about 11. Naturally, I made a beeline for the videogames magazines, and I was rather shocked to note how much, erm, 'flesh' was on display, but then this seemed to be the case elsewhere in the store—even on children's books.

It is strange that people will scorn The Sun for page 3 on purely prudish terms (rather than on, say, exploitative ones), and yet will turn a blind eye to bloodshed, guns and violence. Certainly Oli Frey's zombie cover is one of the most horrific images to appear in Retro Gamer, and yet I don't think anyone mentioned it at the time, even in relation to small children reading/seeing the magazine.
How often do images like Oli's cover feature in Retro Gamer though, is it every issue?
Splink!

User avatar
Coopdevil
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:25 am
Location: Comfortable, tunnel-like hall.

Post by Coopdevil » Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:59 pm

There seem to be two discussions going on here, one about the pr0n ads, the other about the violent nature of some game theme/game-related artwork which is in itself not really an open or shut case because videogame violence has to be regarded in context which can be anything from black humour, Tom and Jerry, homage to classic horror or done for shock value.

The classic Frey illos are part of gaming history - they referred to games of the time (IIRC that one was for Zombie Zombie) and lets face it, any disapproval from parents of that sort of thing just reinforced gamings position as the in thing for teenage lads in the 80s....

(Take a look on World of Spectrum at the artwork that he used to do for the borders of the adventure game column - all scantily clad Amazons and semi-naked wenches tied up as sacrifices for monsters and severed heads and spurting arteries. All surrounding questions like "How do I get Timmy into the sea cave on Famous Five Adventure?")

They are part of games and gaming culture, sex lines ain't.

Coop

User avatar
CraigGrannell
Posts: 4734
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:15 am
Contact:

Post by CraigGrannell » Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:32 pm

Coopdevil wrote:They are part of games and gaming culture, sex lines ain't.
I totally agree. However, much of this discussion was hinging on imagery being seen out of context (in a what-if-my-young-kid-caught-a-glimpse-of-it way), and with that in mind, you're comparing some fairly turgid "erotic" images with some quite gory violent images.

In context, it's a different matter, but when context is taken into account, it's actually easier to make an argument for the adverts, too, since they bring in revenue. Still, let's see what the next couple of months brings, eh? I wouldn't be surprised to see the adverts toned down some.
iPhone/iPod/iPad game/app reviews: http://www.iphonetiny.com

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8712
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Dudley » Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:39 pm

Coopdevil wrote: They are part of games and gaming culture, sex lines ain't.
Ultimately does that matter, it's either suitable for your kid or isn't.

The point being

1 - The sex ads are more suitable than other parts of the mag so can't in themselves make the whole thing unsuitable for any age group.

2 - If suitability isn't an issue then the only real arguement is "I want to prevent RG getting revenue because I'm too lazy to skip pages that don't interest me".
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

User avatar
stvd
Posts: 5137
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:51 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by stvd » Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:23 pm

Dudley wrote:1 - The sex ads are more suitable than other parts of the mag so can't in themselves make the whole thing unsuitable for any age group.
What parts are they then?

Utini
Posts: 811
Joined: Sun May 21, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: The Kessel System

Post by Utini » Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:26 pm

Dudley wrote:
Coopdevil wrote: They are part of games and gaming culture, sex lines ain't.
Ultimately does that matter, it's either suitable for your kid or isn't.

The point being

1 - The sex ads are more suitable than other parts of the mag so can't in themselves make the whole thing unsuitable for any age group.

2 - If suitability isn't an issue then the only real arguement is "I want to prevent RG getting revenue because I'm too lazy to skip pages that don't interest me".
The issue is not whether or not they are suitable for three year old, but whether they are suitable at all.

Those adds are not about porn, but about exploitation. They exploit the women who appear in the pictures, who will never receive 0.01% of the money they generate, they exploit the women who record the messages who will never receive 0.01% of the money they earn. They exploit the people who phone those numbers, who are paying to propogate these attrocities and who probably never receive any benfit from them.

And what of violence? For the most part violence in video games is morally justifiable given the context of the game. Even in games such as GTA you have the choice of whether or not yu beat up the prostitute for her money. There are, of course, a few reprehensible exceptions.

The violence in video games expoits no one. Those adds exploit many people. Morally reprehensible as they are, I will say this: by buying a magazine where these adverts appear, and by not phoning the profferred numbers, I am helping to ruin the scum who profiteer from them. And help to keep my favourite magazine running.
Hey, Sweden!
They're not Swedish Mac, they're Norwegian!

User avatar
Elgin_McQueen
Posts: 6769
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:08 am
Location: Elgin, Scotland

Post by Elgin_McQueen » Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:15 pm

I'm going on record now to point out, i'm not gonna bother anymore after this post. I pretty much guarantee there will be no letters sent nor recieved by the people in question about this. If any of you really did care enough about this you'd have a pen and paper in front of you now, as bar walking into advrtising offices with a gun and shooting people, a letter is the ONLY thing you can do about it!!

And that's all I have to say on the matter.
TMR wrote: And you wonder why you're being labelled as elitist... you couldn't be any more elite if you were a wireframe.

Image

psj3809
Posts: 19015
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:28 am

Post by psj3809 » Fri Apr 20, 2007 2:32 am

Utini wrote:The issue is not whether or not they are suitable for three year old, but whether they are suitable at all.

Those adds are not about porn, but about exploitation. They exploit the women who appear in the pictures, who will never receive 0.01% of the money they generate, they exploit the women who record the messages who will never receive 0.01% of the money they earn. They exploit the people who phone those numbers, who are paying to propogate these attrocities and who probably never receive any benfit from them.
Exploit ? Come on. These women must do a lot of shoots like this for various mags, i'm sure theyre paid a fair bit, they know they get the money for the photo not for any of the money they generate (just like any other actor in an advert). Theyre not forced at gunpoint to do this , if they dont want a normal job and instead do provocative ads like this then its up to them. I'm sure if you met any of them they would be angry with you for feeling so sorry for them and feeling theyre exploited. Not every woman in the porn industry has been forced from her home in Eastern Europe, tricked into coming to the UK as a 'dancer' and then forced to do ads like this you know.

A lot of these women are clever like anything, know if they do some shots like this for various lads mags they get paid a ton and can afford a nice lifestyle all for showing a bit of flesh for a few years.

What next ? 'The actor in the latest Heinz Beans advert is being exploited as he'll never see any of the money generated from more beans sales' ??

As for the whole 3 year old thing i'm shocked a parent even lets their kid pick up the mag. Theres swear words in the mag from time to time, shock/horror, imagine if the kid reads those ! So RG has to tone it down because some parents messed up and their kid read it ?

As for other kids reading it have we all turned into Mary Whitehouse ? I'm sure when we were all 10/12 in school we knew swear words, saw some 'rude' pictures when some older kid at school brought in a mag etc ! I think we're being so naive to think it'll shock kids (10+).

User avatar
CraigGrannell
Posts: 4734
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:15 am
Contact:

Post by CraigGrannell » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:36 am

Utini wrote:Those adds are not about porn, but about exploitation. They exploit the women who appear in the pictures, who will never receive 0.01% of the money they generate, they exploit the women who record the messages who will never receive 0.01% of the money they earn
Hey, welcome to the world of capitalism! I take it you never purchase clothes and electrical goods that were made in foreign sweatshops, or food from overseas that isn't Fairtrade, then?
And what of violence? For the most part violence in video games is morally justifiable given the context of the game.
Yes, but that's the roundabout of this argument:

- These adverts aren't suitable for my three-year-old
- "But RG has plenty of stuff that isn't suitable for three-year-olds
- The violent stuff is relevant in context
- "The adverts are relevant in context"

And so it goes.

Ultimately, advertising appears in magazines, due to that magazine's basic demographic. We get retro game ads because the magazine is about retro gaming. We get sleazy sex-line ads because Retro Gamer's core demographic (blokes in their 20s, 30s and 40s) are the most likely people to use those services.

Still, like I said, I'll be surprised if the ads aren't toned down over the next couple of months.
iPhone/iPod/iPad game/app reviews: http://www.iphonetiny.com

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8712
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Dudley » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:41 am

stvd wrote:
Dudley wrote:1 - The sex ads are more suitable than other parts of the mag so can't in themselves make the whole thing unsuitable for any age group.
What parts are they then?
That cover for a start.

Coverage and pictures from 15, 16+ and 18 rated games (the sex ads are a low PG at best).
Those adds are not about porn, but about exploitation. They exploit the women who appear in the pictures, who will never receive 0.01% of the money they generate, they exploit the women who record the messages who will never receive 0.01% of the money they earn. They exploit the people who phone those numbers, who are paying to propogate these attrocities and who probably never receive any benfit from them.
That could neatly apply to almost any ad. Any retail ad is exploiting those in the stores, who will never recieve 0.01% of the money they generate etc etc.

Because it's a vaguely sexual toned ad it's somehow different?

I'd suspect they're on more money than a Tesco shelf stacker for a lot less work. The services do not exploit the people phoning at all, they're paying an advertised price for what they consider a service.
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

Bub&Bob
Posts: 6833
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:24 am

Post by Bub&Bob » Fri Apr 20, 2007 3:46 am

andrew_rollings wrote:Personally, I lament that I can't let my 10 year old read the magazine, because he enjoys playing the old games (and they're often more suitable in content that the newer ones)...
However, if it meant the difference between RetroGamer not attracting enough advertising to be economically viable, or displaying sex ads, then I'll take the sex ads, as distasteful, inappropriate and inconvenient as I may find them.

YMMV.

Andrew
Can you not just tear those pages out of the mag - I don't have kids (to the best of my knowledge :wink:) but I guess if you want yours to be able to read the mag then the sacrifice of a couple of pages is worth it?
The dry fart for Barry MacDermot and all the cancer patients in the Glamorgan testicle ward

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests