psj3809 wrote:kiwimike wrote:Still seems like elite snobbism to me.

Dont think thats true. Just people are saying 'well Simon is a retro game so should be in Retro Gamer'. Thats not true, the aim of Retro gamer was to feature retro games on computers/consoles/arcade, so thats why 99% of it has always been that way. If it said on the front cover instead of Amstrad, Sinclair, Commodore, it said Amstrad, Vintage Electronic Games, Sinclair... etc then fair enough.
I actually dont mind the article at all, think a ton of people had one of these back in the day (before it then got dusty and not used for years the second computers arrived in the 80s), i would actually like to see a small feature on classic electronic games once every now and then, theres some great classics out there. The game and watch article a while back was superb.
But for me the mags about games i can emulate on my PC and i played back in the day on a computer or console. The odd article is great to read but i hope it doesnt turn into a vintage toy type of mag.
Oh for sure man, I totally agree with you in that I personally like the mag to 99% focus on retro video games-by defination computer and console games. And my preference is game of the '80s to early '90s-but am happy to see other eras of course-and as the mag progresses more consoles will become outdated. Yes, That's why I buy the mag...and I wouldn't want too much handheld/tabletop/toy stuff coming into the mag. And we agree that the occasional feature, well written-like both the G&W and Simon features- are welcome 'distractions', if you like.
Where I am suggesting it is 'elite snobbism'- And I don't mean to offend (as I'm a game snob myself- I ****ing hate singstar with a passion!)-Is when the arguement comes fourth that the electronic game Simon is a mere toy, and therefore not valid for the mag...but other games like the tabletop LEDs, the handheld LCDs, the G&W series- Are 'proper' games and fine to go to press. I mentioned Mattels very early 'Autorace' game, an early example of a LED handheld with nothing but a blinking LED 'Dash' you move up a very thin screen getting to the end of the screen three times, avoiding the other, identical LED dashes. It is considered a classic, collectable unit. Is this game welcome? Although the gameplay is basic in extreme is it valid?
It is a tough question, and I do feel there's valid arguements for both sides. Like you, I prefer the mag to focus on console/computer games. BUT- In my opinion- If you are going to include one sort of electronic stand alone game as valid (Like G&W), then all electronic stand alone games are valid. You can't call one 'proper' and one 'kids toy.' Truth is, all those games are kids toys, that is what the market was aimed for, and why we saw so many around the schoolyard or at friends houses after school-Rarely did adults buy them for themselves (whereas adults did buy Atari VCS and Spectrums in the era).
Here's one to ponder: Do you include old games like the TomyTronic 'Digital Derby'?! Not only aimed at kids, but young kids! It is an early version of a Monaco GP...
Truth is, I don't know. I'm happy to see the features, maybe others aren't. My only belief is that if you include handheld or tabletops, all are valid. Or none. There aren't 'proper' ones and 'toy' ones. Maybe snobbism isn't the correct term, but it was the only one I could think of.
