Retro Gamer Issue 117 - Feedback Thread

[kelp7]

If I write the same sentence again will it 'proof' it right?

We need a percentage calculation or something to guarantee that the balance is correct this issue

[Darran@Retro Gamer]

Fine. But the balance is wrong in this issue, definitely.

in your opinion...

[Darran@Retro Gamer]

But personally I don't like these "look, here are some pictures of comparable games we know with 2 sentences beneath it" boxes.

It just wastes space which could be filled with interesting stuff from the interview or about the gameplay, story etc of the featured game itself etc.
And it screams "lazy" a little bit
Sorry to say that...

Or it gives you a good overview of where Thief stands in the importance of stealth games. Not everyone knows everything about old games
I certainly don't.

[kelp7]

Fine. But the balance is wrong in this issue, definitely.

in your opinion...

Yeah well, you try and stop me having an opinion

Joking aside, I don't think I'm the only person that feels that way about this issue which kind of means there must be 'something in it'.

[Darran@Retro Gamer]

Well that's hard to say. As no one else has really said much during the thread related to the newer content. It's also worth noting that the forum doesn't make up a percentage of the total readership, which makes it very hard to judge if comments are fully representive of the readership as a whole. The only way you can really judge feedback is if there's a drop off in sales, but even that isn't a sure thing as it could just be due to what's on the cover. What I do know though is that RG has nearly twice as far more readers than it did when we launched it. which suggests many people are happy with the changes. And technically they're not even changes.

Just out of interest what do you feel is too new?

[kelp7]

I'd have to have another flick through but that Naughty Dog thing and the Thief article come to mind.... alright, maybe i *am* in the minority...

[gunbladelad]

Who proofread the Capcom Article?

I never knew there were "rabid gods" in Resident evil...

Aside from that, I'm still reading through it. Looking good so far.

[ncf1]

i'm downhearted i didnt get to vote in the Capcom voting thing. I'd have had Resident Evil 4 at number 1, Strider number 2, 1942 at number 3, and it would have changed everything.

[merman]

I'd have to have another flick through but that Naughty Dog thing and the Thief article come to mind.... alright, maybe i *am* in the minority...

Naughty Dog writing games since the Apple, and the original Thief over ten years old and with the boxout showing where it stood in stealth gaming history (NOT just a lazy addition to the article, those things take a lot of research to get right), does not scream "too new" to me...

[Darran@Retro Gamer]

Who proofread the Capcom Article?

I never knew there were "rabid gods" in Resident evil...

You mean you've not seen them?

[kelp7]

Just out of interest what do you feel is too new?

It's okay, I've realised what it is now It's pretty much a Paul Drury-free issue and his articles are normally the ones I flick to first and enjoy the most!

[merman]

Just out of interest what do you feel is too new?

It's okay, I've realised what it is now It's pretty much a Paul Drury-free issue and his articles are normally the ones I flick to first and enjoy the most!

Err, Paul did the Making of Styx with Matthew Smith and made it interesting in just two pages...

[gunbladelad]

Who proofread the Capcom Article?

I never knew there were "rabid gods" in Resident evil...

You mean you've not seen them?

I've seen plenty of Rabid dogs in Resident Evil, but I've yet to see any rabid deities running about the Spencer mansion & surrounding grounds.

[kelp7]

Err, Paul did the Making of Styx with Matthew Smith and made it interesting in just two pages...

Haha, okay brain-fail moment then. But i'm sure he has more than just one article each issue, if not forgive me. Overall, it still seems like a 'modern' issue to me and the usual balance isn't there, I just don't think I'm good at quantifying why that is i guess.

[rockdjuk]

I find it weird how some people only like reading about things they have already experienced and already know about, and then say that an issue is "mediocre" - which is pretty rude and insulting to all involved making it.

For me, being a Retro-Gamer means that I love reading about games and machines I have never heard of before, and especially love the interviews with developers and designers where you find out anecdotes and about how they managed to get a machine to do something technically, even if I haven't played that game or machine. It always motivates me to go and find out more information and trying emulating that machine or game to find out more.

Yeah, I agree with that completely, it does grate when the odd person will dis an issue simply due to it not catering to their specific taste when the mag has to cover a huge variety of software and hardware across a wide range of platforms and eras...and attempt to please everyone- But ultimately from a positive angle it does show the passion gamers have for gaming history and the systems they like. Any forum that gets heated, be it sport, music, photography whatever- shows a deep passion for the subject.

But on this issue, looks great and I'm off to order from the store.

Which is why all the way through my post I kept saying "for me "

Why is it rude to say an issue is mediocre in a thread asking for comments about the issue ? Are we only allowed to write gushing praise ? How can the magazine know what it is doing right or wrong if that is the case . I have paid for every single issue of the magazine back to issue 1 and am a subscriber so I feel I have every right to pass comment . Especially as I have given reasons why I feel this way .

It is called Retro Gamer , therefore do you not think that most of us want to read about things that have relevance to what we have experienced and played as a kid ? I very rarely get the chance to play any games , so reading up about stuff I've never even heard of is a little pointless .