Inappropriate jokes in Retro Gamer

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

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

psj3809
Posts: 18834
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:28 am

Post by psj3809 » Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:09 am

I read this page just the other day, realised it was an advert but normally when something 'looks' like a real page in a magazine they always have at the bottom 'this is an advertisment'

The 'joke' in question i laughed at. I cant believe some people were offended by this ? Just reminded me of a Your Sinclair joke, again we're all adults and granted 'some' readers may be very young but that joke was tame compared to the semi-dressed pics of women in the back of the mag.

Is that joke honestly more 'offensive' than the back where there is "Dr Sex & U" and 'Sexy Findball' etc ?

I found that joke quite amusing though and didnt batter an eyelid thinking it was shocking or anything.

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8698
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Dudley » Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:15 am

It actually passes the most advanced test for a joke like that. A kid will find it funny (haha! no pants!) but not realise the intended more adult meaning, which the adult will find funny.

It's by a distance the cleverest part of what I'd also not realised was an advert but had just skipped most of because it appeared to be crap.
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

psj3809
Posts: 18834
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:28 am

Post by psj3809 » Thu Apr 17, 2008 3:35 am

I just cant believe a kid will read all of that, see that joke and be shocked at it. Yet at the same time glance through all the magazine and not see the 'rude' adverts near the back of the mag.

So they'll see a small sentence on that advert yet miss and not be 'shocked' by the pics at the back ? Hmmm !

User avatar
Overheat
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:25 pm
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Post by Overheat » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:00 am

I tried to read the segment several times - but I found it overwhelming and badly written. I also didn't know whether it was an advert or a feature, but either way I didn't care for it. Probably the only page in the magazine that I didn't read to be honest!
Overheat's Top 10 Auctions *updated weekly (or thereabouts)* | CLICK HERE

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

Post by CraigGrannell » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:50 am

I'm actually a little surprised so many people didn't realise it was an advert. The only way it could have been editorial is if Darran, in a fit of insanity, had fired RG's designer and installed his youngest nipper in the role instead.
iPhone/iPod/iPad game/app reviews: http://www.iphonetiny.com

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

Post by Bub&Bob » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:51 am

Dudley wrote:Seriously? We're getting worked up over something THAT mild? Christ.
Actually, you are correct - I can't be on here singing the praises of Derek & Clive and Jerry Sadowitz and then moan about that - have edited my original post accordingly - I did watch a clip of Mr Sadowitz recently who was discussing Mr Glitter. Obviously won't detail it here but I did chuckle.

I still think that the content was a load of crap but clearly from an advertising point of view it has done its job as its getting some press now.
The dry fart for Barry MacDermot and all the cancer patients in the Glamorgan testicle ward

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

Post by Bub&Bob » Thu Apr 17, 2008 4:51 am

CraigGrannell wrote:I'm actually a little surprised so many people didn't realise it was an advert. The only way it could have been editorial is if Darran, in a fit of insanity, had fired RG's designer and installed his youngest nipper in the role instead.
Based on some of the censored ups recently its not out of the question :wink:
The dry fart for Barry MacDermot and all the cancer patients in the Glamorgan testicle ward

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

Post by CraigGrannell » Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:32 am

Retro Gamer often has subbing errors, but I don't think I've ever seen the designer regress to creating something looks like it was spat out of Microsoft Word. The worst design in Imagine's Retro Gamer has been when time constraints have forced 'generic' making-ofs—and even those were clean and tidy.
iPhone/iPod/iPad game/app reviews: http://www.iphonetiny.com

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

Post by Bub&Bob » Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:42 am

CraigGrannell wrote:creating something looks like it was spat out of Microsoft Word
Or in this case, shat :wink:
The dry fart for Barry MacDermot and all the cancer patients in the Glamorgan testicle ward

chinnyhill10
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 10:29 am

Post by chinnyhill10 » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:09 am

markopoloman wrote:I must have had Ad Blocker on when I read my issue of RG - Don't even remember seeing that page!

:roll: :lol:
I skipped over it as it looked pretty awful and couldn't work out what the point of it was.

User avatar
pforson
Posts: 2735
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:32 am
Location: uk london
Contact:

Post by pforson » Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:48 am

Ignoring the dodgy layout and the fact that it rambled on somewhat I actually found it quite funny. I didn't realise it was an advert and came away thinking 'nice, retrogamer have added a funny opinion piece'.

As it now transpires to be an advert. Could I suggest that Retrogamer does start running an amusing opinion column?
WANTED: Amiga CD32 games. PM me. :)

Image

knight_beat
Posts: 605
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 12:23 pm
Location: London... Home of Danger Mouse

Post by knight_beat » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:16 am

Retro games, eh? They're a bit old, etc. etc.

I have to admit that I thought it was a real page. I thought it was an attempt to replicate the appearance of American games mags or something.

User avatar
avant
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 8:54 am

Post by avant » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:57 am

also thought it was somekind of proper article, in issue 49 there was no "this is an advert" and it didn't seem to be advertising anything other than the author's ugly ugly face.

User avatar
Randall Flagg
Posts: 1898
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 7:21 am
Location: The Underwurlde
Contact:

Post by Randall Flagg » Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:21 am

Dudley wrote:It actually passes the most advanced test for a joke like that. A kid will find it funny (haha! no pants!) but not realise the intended more adult meaning, which the adult will find funny.

It's by a distance the cleverest part of what I'd also not realised was an advert but had just skipped most of because it appeared to be crap.
Yeah, I'm probably just over reacting. Perhaps it would help if you could explain to me exactly what is so funny about taking a picture of a kid sat on his fathers lap and suggesting that the kid is being sexually abused by the father......
Retrotechy.
Zapp Brannigan Quote - You remind me of a younger me Fry, Not much younger mind, Perhaps even a little older... Image

psj3809
Posts: 18834
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:28 am

Post by psj3809 » Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:35 am

Randall Flagg wrote:Yeah, I'm probably just over reacting. Perhaps it would help if you could explain to me exactly what is so funny about taking a picture of a kid sat on his fathers lap and suggesting that the kid is being sexually abused by the father......
Dont you think thats a totally over the top reaction though ? I'm stunned this has even been brought up, seems like 99% of the other readers arent bothered as theres been no comment of this until yesterday and everyones had the mag for a few weeks now.

All jokes are 'offensive' to some people. Going by your way of thinking 'what is so funny about asking why someones child is ginger ?' I dont know, all this uproar, are people honestly sickened or shocked by that 'joke' ?

Back in the YS days there were sometimes some slightly 'adult' type humour jokes, granted not about kiddie fiddlers but even so a parent 'might' have been shocked by that.

Again i find that joke harmless compared to the ads in the back which i can imagine would cause more uproar. The ginger joke was quite amusing and the armchair one pretty harmless ?

Theres a comment about the 'nan', a joke about a 'stain' on a photograph which someone might have liked a bit too much.

To me theyre harmless jokes. Kids could buy a copy of Viz which has adult humour in and read much 'worse'.

I found the whole page pretty funny, if anything wouldnt mind seeing more of these. Its 'Retro Gamer', we're all mostly adults, surely the mag shouldnt go PC and totally innocent in case a few kids read it ?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest