Retro Gamer Now X-rated

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

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

Weblaus
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:01 pm
Location: Germany

Re:

Post by Weblaus » Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:03 am

sparky wrote:No, it's the parents responsibilty to teach their children 'responsibility' :?
I don't see where I'm saying anything different. Putting blinders on kids until they're 18 doesn't strike me as the right kind of responsibility either, that's true.
Right, I'm off to take my 3 & 5 year olds to a porn convention. It's amazing what you'll find down the grandparents.
If I'm supposed to understand this, you need to explain it more clearly, otherwise I guess my grasp of the English language isn't good enough to cath the finer nuances.

Reading it the way I understand it, it certainly doesn't make sense. Kids of 3 and 5 years most likely can't read, therefore no point in complaining about the content of the ads, and likening these ads to porn simply is a joke to me.. by the way, were sales of the infamous tabloids with the page 3 girls ever age-restricted?

User avatar
Opa-Opa
Posts: 4304
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re:

Post by Opa-Opa » Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:09 am

Weblaus wrote:Reading it the way I understand it, it certainly doesn't make sense. Kids of 3 and 5 years most likely can't read, therefore no point in complaining about the content of the ads
Another post that confirms you have no idea about children... Maybe in your world children can't read but in the real world they can.

Weblaus
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:01 pm
Location: Germany

Re:

Post by Weblaus » Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:33 am

Opa-Opa wrote:Another post that confirms you have no idea about children... Maybe in your world children can't read but in the real world they can.
Oooh boy, excuse me.. in our caveman-like society over here (Grmans are after all primitive and have posined your royality's bloodline), reading is teached in primary school - which starts at age 6. Indeed there are kids who can read earlier, but that's the excpetion to the rule, since most parents have the good sense to let their kids be kids instead of pushing them already at such an early age.

I'm so sorry I underestimate the British children's intelligence where 3-year-olds are perfectly capable of reading (and therefore comprehending) stuff like Retro Gamer just fine. Hey, if they're up to that, you surely shouldn't have a problem explaining them these ads anyway.

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8716
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Re:

Post by Dudley » Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:47 am

Opa-Opa wrote:Dudley, Stuff and T3 nearly always have a half naked woman on the front holding a new camara or I-pod thing and there for deserve to be covered up.
You also say that there would need to be ten of me to cover the loss of readers who stop buying the mag because of a small price rise, but where did you get that figure from..? Seems to me it's just a guess for arguments sakes.
You said you'd be willing to pay 50p. They'd need 10 of those 50ps to cover the one person dropping out and not paying £5.

Also, there's nothing on stuff that isn't on the cover of cosmo, or about 18 similar mags.
Parental responsibility has nothing to do with this discusion. The magazine is not an "adult" magazine and the advertising sales team who know that people from all age groups read this mag should be taking some of the responsibility as well. We as parents try to keep these images away from our children while the people who make money couldn't care less, how is that the parents fault..?
Because you're trying to censor someone elses experience rather than put in the effort to evaluate the material you open up to your kids. Why should we all pay that 50p say because you can't be arsed to parent?

Or of course you could just stop being so uptight and recognise that the average 12 year old probably knows more about sex than you do.

I dont know where you got that impression but perhaps I didnt put it diwn clearly, I was just asking him if he would accept ads containing child porn or links to childporn in the magazine just so he could still save a few pence on the magazine.
Yes and therefore using that as an example of an ad. you compared those ads to child porn ads.
I being a member of the NSPCC know exactly that childporn is not the same as ads for sex chatlines but a hell of a lot worse, but if some children were to phone these numbers out of curiosty and listend to people having orgasms e.g. etc on these lines that in itself could be a form of child abuse.
You are of course joking here. Child abuse needs someone to commit the crime. Who is the abuser in this scenario? The line clearly marked for over 18s? The advertiser selling the ad clearly marked for over 18s?
I don't have any problems with 'Porn' mags advertising 'Porn', but what I don't like is reading a publication that is generally aimed at any age group, only to flick the page to find 'Chat with the hottest girls'.
It's tasteless ignorance and serves no purpose in a mag such as RG.

It pisses me right of when people quote 'don't read if you don't like', why don't people use that locked part of their brain called 'common sense'
Because common sense means "Don't read what you don't like" not "Try to alter the experience for anyone else".

Why should we all pay 50p extra on the mag (since apparently we're going with that as the cost) because you can't be bothered to sigh and turn a page, or just not buy a mag doing something you don't like.

They were acceptable as long as I've been alive. They were in PC Format 10 years ago for instance. Probably still are.
Sounds to me like you don't have children.

We are not talking about the kids ringing the numbers, we are talking about the advert being there in the first place, showing women as sex objects in a place where children could easy be exposed to it and being out of content with the rest of the magazine..
And if you don't like them, don't give your kids access to that material.
Last edited by Dudley on Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

User avatar
retro mania
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 11:39 am
Location: peterborough

Post by retro mania » Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:55 am

I can only see two of these ad's anyway its not like there's pages and pages of them.

Jonathon Saunders
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2006 6:33 am

Re:

Post by Jonathon Saunders » Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:08 am

Dudley wrote:
You are of course joking here. Child abuse needs someone to commit the crime. Who is the abuser in this scenario? The line clearly marked for over 18s? The advertiser selling the ad clearly marked for over 18s?
I never joke about something as serious as child abuse. If a child phones a chatline out of curiosity and gets upset at what he/she is hearng you cant really blame the parents since they would assume that a magazine about computer games would be about computer games and contain not porn items and wouldnt mind their child reading it. You would blame the irrisponsibility of the magazine makers for putting ads in those magazine.
Dudley wrote:
The advertiser selling the ad clearly marked for over 18s?
Funny ive just looked at my copy of Retro Gamer and the ads have 18 nowhere to been seen on any of the ads besides if they did have 18 on the ads what child today obeys age limits. How many underage children do you see today drinking or smoking in schoolyards etc yet the age limits are clearly marked on those too.

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8716
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Dudley » Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:16 am

Well tbh, either they're unacceptable or they're not.

That said, let's survey this months mag as the kind of fundie that has an issue with this kind of thing.

Cover - Street Fighter 2 - game about kicking the censored out of people. Kids might copy it! Certainly a 16+ game these days if it hadn't predated the rating system. Also cover contains blasphemy if you care about that.

Page 4 - Half naked lady and fighting game.

Page 5 -violent game based on 15 rated movie. Repeat of blasphemy.

Page 6 - Violent game starring man in pants

Page 8 - Villan of the month. Glorifying violence.

Page 12 - Violent stret fighting game

Page 14 - story of how to cheat in violent game

Violent inappropriate games also appear on pages 20,21, 32, 36-43, 48-63, 67-69, 83-89 and 96 to stop me having to type too much.

Page 67 also includes half-naked man, page 68 a picture of a woman much more revealing than either ad, and about the same size,

Blasphemy on page 74.

Page 83, a game "too violent for US release"

Page 90 Game involving reckless driving on public roads

Page 97 Half naked character in violent game

Rear cover - large ad for violent 16+ game.

But yes, by all means get your panties in a bunch of 1/8th of a page of harmless head shot only sexy phone call ads.
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

User avatar
LeeT
Posts: 1061
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 4:36 pm

Re:

Post by LeeT » Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:25 am

Jonathon Saunders wrote:so LeeT/Retrogamer what you are saying is you condone porn so you can save a few pence in buying retro gamer. Would you feel the same way if the ads were advertising sex lines which contained child porn. Would you think it still ok as long as you could save a few pence in buying retro gamer.
For starters, theres a difference between child porn and a few scantily dressed females on a couple of pages - Obviously you take the Mary Whitehouse view of putting everything in the same category without actually looking at it. Plus it would be more than a 'few pence' if the adverts had to go.

This kind of argument was around twenty years ago (remember the Sam Fox/ Maria Whittaker/Psycho Pigs UXB adverts storm?). The world moves on and (whether you think its good or bad) theres nothing you can do to stop it.

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8716
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Re:

Post by Dudley » Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:28 am

Jonathon Saunders wrote: I never joke about something as serious as child abuse. If a child phones a chatline out of curiosity and gets upset at what he/she is hearng you cant really blame the parents since they would assume that a magazine about computer games would be about computer games and contain not porn items and wouldnt mind their child reading it. You would blame the irrisponsibility of the magazine makers for putting ads in those magazine.
No I wouldn't. I'd blame the parents if anyone. Firstly for not raising their kids to at least ask for before using the phone, secondly for not checking their reading material and asking someone else to be responsible for their kids and thirdly for clearly raising their kids to be utter morons.


Funny ive just looked at my copy of Retro Gamer and the ads have 18 nowhere to been seen on any of the ads besides if they did have 18 on the ads what child today obeys age limits. How many underage children do you see today drinking or smoking in schoolyards etc yet the age limits are clearly marked on those too.
Excelent, let's ban everything on the slim chance a kid might get their hands on them.

Including all the games I mention in the post above.

Or we could, and it's a shock so you might want to sit down, ask parents to parent?

But then I'm arguing with someone who is against head shot ads but is prepared to compare them to child porn and call them child abuse.
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

User avatar
mel the bell
Posts: 462
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 8:42 am
Location: near whitby
Contact:

Re:

Post by mel the bell » Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:30 am

sparky wrote: It's tasteless ignorance and serves no purpose in a mag such as RG.
apart from males - 18 - 40 are the general readership and the ones most likely to use the service advertised, and it brings in cash for the magazine
On 2003-12-08 20:15, cyborg wrote:
You're all corporate bitches if you buy a console - face it. Unless it's a Phantom - in that case you're just stupid - because even if it did exist it'd be crap

Weblaus
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 1:01 pm
Location: Germany

Re:

Post by Weblaus » Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:33 am

Jonathon Saunders wrote:I never joke about something as serious as child abuse. If a child phones a chatline out of curiosity and gets upset at what he/she is hearng you cant really blame the parents since they would assume that a magazine about computer games would be about computer games and contain not porn items and wouldnt mind their child reading it. You would blame the irrisponsibility of the magazine makers for putting ads in those magazine.
A long time ago I read a saying somewhere: "assume means making an ass out of you and me". Everything should conform to your (or the theoretical parents) opinion so you don't have to care for anything yourself? End given that since the beginning of gaming, games never have been all-around asexual and given your obviously very all-encompassing definition of porn, how can you give a kid anything to read about games at all when there might be e.g. a feature about the latest Dead or Alive included?

Dudley wrote:
The advertiser selling the ad clearly marked for over 18s?
Funny ive just looked at my copy of Retro Gamer and the ads have 18 nowhere to been seen on any of the ads besides if they did have 18 on the ads what child today obeys age limits. How many underage children do you see today drinking or smoking in schoolyards etc yet the age limits are clearly marked on those too.
I'll give you that the chat ad has no age label, but the other two do (one 16+ and one 18+). But as you say: What child does obey age limits these days? So let's ban everything! How can you let children leave the house unattended anyway when you know there's stuff like cigarettes and alcohol they might get their hands on?

But I guess after all, parents aren't indeed responsible.

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8716
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Re:

Post by Dudley » Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:37 am

LeeT wrote: For starters, theres a difference between child porn and a few scantily dressed females on a couple of pages - Obviously you take the Mary Whitehouse view of putting everything in the same category without actually looking at it. Plus it would be more than a 'few pence' if the adverts had to go.
And given the ads in question, scantily clad is pushing it.

For anyone not paying attention, here's the 1/8th of a page for which jonathon wants you all to burn in hell.

Image
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

User avatar
Crunchy
Posts: 2123
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:43 am
Location: Claymorgue Castle

Re:

Post by Crunchy » Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:40 am

Dudley wrote:
LeeT wrote: For starters, theres a difference between child porn and a few scantily dressed females on a couple of pages - Obviously you take the Mary Whitehouse view of putting everything in the same category without actually looking at it. Plus it would be more than a 'few pence' if the adverts had to go.
And given the ads in question, scantily clad is pushing it.

For anyone not paying attention, here's the 1/8th of a page for which jonathon wants you all to burn in hell.

Image
Each to his own beliefs though Dudley.
Of course, being a bit of an arsehole you probably can't comprehend that.

User avatar
Opa-Opa
Posts: 4304
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 3:35 pm
Location: Kent UK
Contact:

Re:

Post by Opa-Opa » Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:43 am

Weblaus wrote:
Opa-Opa wrote:Another post that confirms you have no idea about children... Maybe in your world children can't read but in the real world they can.
Oooh boy, excuse me.. in our caveman-like society over here (Grmans are after all primitive and have posined your royality's bloodline), reading is teached in primary school - which starts at age 6. Indeed there are kids who can read earlier, but that's the excpetion to the rule, since most parents have the good sense to let their kids be kids instead of pushing them already at such an early age.

I'm so sorry I underestimate the British children's intelligence where 3-year-olds are perfectly capable of reading (and therefore comprehending) stuff like Retro Gamer just fine. Hey, if they're up to that, you surely shouldn't have a problem explaining them these ads anyway.
Why are you trying to turn this into a race issue.? I never said anything about you living in a caveman society or poisoning blood lines, I just pointed out that you have no idea about parenting what so ever which you have proved yet again by stating that schools teach children to read and that parents have nothing to do with the learning process.?
If you had any experance bringing up children you would know that it is vital to teach your child from a very early age to read and write before they go to school otherwise they just get left behind in the learning process once they start school.
Thats what the parents with a good sense of what is right for their child do, parents with no sense just let kids be kids (laze around, eat chocolate and fight with their brothers/sisters) and then later in life its the "kids" who suffer.

Dudly, you yourself wrote on this forum that the sales figures for RG was roughly 24000 taken from the MCV, I am sure that a full page ad does not come to £12000 which is what an extra 0.50p would generate....

As for the list of "bad things" you posted, these are fictional games not porn lines and as parents we teach our children the diffence between reality and fiction. We could I guess tell our children that porn lines are not real but then we would be lying and we also teach children that lying is wrong so that would be rather hypocritical.

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8716
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Post by Dudley » Sun Apr 16, 2006 11:43 am

In the meantime though, THIS is A-OK!

Image
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest