Retro Gamer Magazine

[Erik_Twice]

I've read a couple of issues and while they seem fun at first, they suffer from the same lack of quality the average internet article on video games has, that is: they don't have a deep understanding of games as a medium so every analysis is hopelessly superficial.

It's the kind of publication that knows R-Type is a memorizer and thinks that great but couldn't explain you why is that so. It's like those Street of Rage articles that never explain the enemy behaviour because they are focusing on the soundtrack or how difficult Ghosts'n Goblins is. There's a distinct lack of criticism and insight, the focus is on the obvious and anecdotal you know, stuff like Space Invaders causing a coin shortage or Miyamoto being inspired by exploring a cave.

This is actually a problem with game criticism as a whole, it's simply shallow. It doesn't promote an understanding, it doesn't teach, it simply shows the game's surface.

I've said many times that I'm a terrible critic, and I know it's hard to fight against this way of writing. It's difficult to explain level design in writing, it's difficult to give credit to games like Francis Tresham's Civilization or The Tower of Druaga and it's really, really difficult to see the bubble you writing from. But I try. I know I suck. And I try to fix it. Retro Gamer seems content with a shallow approach and it's a shame because they are good enough to be better.

TL;DR: I'm never going to be hired by Retro Gamer after this post.

[Retrogamer0001]

I've read a couple of issues and while they seem fun at first, they suffer from the same lack of quality the average internet article on video games has, that is: they don't have a deep understanding of games as a medium so every analysis is hopelessly superficial.

It's the kind of publication that knows R-Type is a memorizer and thinks that great but couldn't explain you why is that so. It's like those Street of Rage articles that never explain the enemy behaviour because they are focusing on the soundtrack or how difficult Ghosts'n Goblins is. There's a distinct lack of criticism and insight, the focus is on the obvious and anecdotal you know, stuff like Space Invaders causing a coin shortage or Miyamoto being inspired by exploring a cave.

This is actually a problem with game criticism as a whole, it's simply shallow. It doesn't promote an understanding, it doesn't teach, it simply shows the game's surface.

I've said many times that I'm a terrible critic, and I know it's hard to fight against this way of writing. It's difficult to explain level design in writing, it's difficult to give credit to games like Francis Tresham's Civilization or The Tower of Druaga and it's really, really difficult to see the bubble you writing from. But I try. I know I suck. And I try to fix it. Retro Gamer seems content with a shallow approach and it's a shame because they are good enough to be better.

TL;DR: I'm never going to be hired by Retro Gamer after this post.

Uh, you realize this magazine is about old video games, right? A PhD should not be required to either write or read about this topic. I don't need to understand, on a deep, intellectual level, why Ghosts 'N Goblins is difficult. Each article is supposed to be a fun read, a blast from the past, not a thesis.

[dsheinem]

I've read a couple of issues and while they seem fun at first, they suffer from the same lack of quality the average internet article on video games has, that is: they don't have a deep understanding of games as a medium so every analysis is hopelessly superficial.

It's the kind of publication that knows R-Type is a memorizer and thinks that great but couldn't explain you why is that so. It's like those Street of Rage articles that never explain the enemy behaviour because they are focusing on the soundtrack or how difficult Ghosts'n Goblins is. There's a distinct lack of criticism and insight, the focus is on the obvious and anecdotal you know, stuff like Space Invaders causing a coin shortage or Miyamoto being inspired by exploring a cave.

This is actually a problem with game criticism as a whole, it's simply shallow. It doesn't promote an understanding, it doesn't teach, it simply shows the game's surface.

I've said many times that I'm a terrible critic, and I know it's hard to fight against this way of writing. It's difficult to explain level design in writing, it's difficult to give credit to games like Francis Tresham's Civilization or The Tower of Druaga and it's really, really difficult to see the bubble you writing from. But I try. I know I suck. And I try to fix it. Retro Gamer seems content with a shallow approach and it's a shame because they are good enough to be better.

TL;DR: I'm never going to be hired by Retro Gamer after this post.

Uh, you realize this magazine is about old video games, right? A PhD should not be required to either write or read about this topic. I don't need to understand, on a deep, intellectual level, why Ghosts 'N Goblins is difficult. Each article is supposed to be a fun read, a blast from the past, not a thesis.

Yup. Don't look to a publication like Retro Gamer or most sites on the web (including this one) for sophisticated or academic analyses of games. That stuff is out there as well, but it doesn't have to be the only or even understood as the "best" way of thinking about games or games criticism.

[cha cha]

Man I can't believe I missed that one on neo-geo.com! That thread was amazing.

I only have one issue of RG, and it wasn't bad... but to me that magazine doesn't seem worth the cover price. It's the kind of magazine I'd read if it were free when I signed up for some kind of gaming service.

[Erik_Twice]

Each article is supposed to be a fun read, a blast from the past, not a thesis.

I have not argued they should be. I simply think they are shallow and trite. Those are not positives.

[BurningDoom]

I've read a couple of issues and while they seem fun at first, they suffer from the same lack of quality the average internet article on video games has, that is: they don't have a deep understanding of games as a medium so every analysis is hopelessly superficial.

It's the kind of publication that knows R-Type is a memorizer and thinks that great but couldn't explain you why is that so. It's like those Street of Rage articles that never explain the enemy behaviour because they are focusing on the soundtrack or how difficult Ghosts'n Goblins is. There's a distinct lack of criticism and insight, the focus is on the obvious and anecdotal you know, stuff like Space Invaders causing a coin shortage or Miyamoto being inspired by exploring a cave.

This is actually a problem with game criticism as a whole, it's simply shallow. It doesn't promote an understanding, it doesn't teach, it simply shows the game's surface.

I've said many times that I'm a terrible critic, and I know it's hard to fight against this way of writing. It's difficult to explain level design in writing, it's difficult to give credit to games like Francis Tresham's Civilization or The Tower of Druaga and it's really, really difficult to see the bubble you writing from. But I try. I know I suck. And I try to fix it. Retro Gamer seems content with a shallow approach and it's a shame because they are good enough to be better.

TL;DR: I'm never going to be hired by Retro Gamer after this post.

Uh, you realize this magazine is about old video games, right? A PhD should not be required to either write or read about this topic. I don't need to understand, on a deep, intellectual level, why Ghosts 'N Goblins is difficult. Each article is supposed to be a fun read, a blast from the past, not a thesis.

Regardless of that, I think he's absolutely and completely wrong.

Please, show me another magazine that has even close to the depth or content of articles on retro gaming that Retro Gamer has. If you do, I'd be floored.

You know they're making a American retro gaming magazine right?

http://readretro.com/

Outstanding!

I hope it can measure up to the quality of Retro Gamer.

[Erik_Twice]

Please, show me another magazine that has even close to the depth or content of articles on retro gaming that Retro Gamer has. If you do, I'd be floored.

Why? How good or bad Retro Gamer is doesn't depend on other magazines being good or bad. It's bad because it's trite.

[Ack]

Please, show me another magazine that has even close to the depth or content of articles on retro gaming that Retro Gamer has. If you do, I'd be floored.

Why? How good or bad Retro Gamer is doesn't depend on other magazines being good or bad. It's bad because it's trite.

Admittedly though, since you are criticizing that level of game journalism, it seems only fair you offer us examples of publications that reach the depth of analysis you prefer.

Not a criticism, I'm actually genuinely interested in learning of other publications I'm not aware of.

[BurningDoom]

Please, show me another magazine that has even close to the depth or content of articles on retro gaming that Retro Gamer has. If you do, I'd be floored.

Why? How good or bad Retro Gamer is doesn't depend on other magazines being good or bad. It's bad because it's trite.

Why? Are you seriously asking that? Because you're saying what a bad magazine it is. You seem to want The Grapes of Wrath from a gaming magazine...but it's a gaming magazine.

[Blu]

Good Golly Miss Molly, sure is a lot of manchildren in the Neo-Geo forums. I think I made it to page two of that thread before getting tired. Does it get any better?

Everything in a leisure magazine doesn't have to be serious business, or an instant argument if they're disputing facts. We're not talking peer-reviewed, Science/Nature tier articles (I mention Science and Nature with a grain of salt, given recent events) backed with hierarchical evidence, we're talking about vidja games.

Stu could've been a little more restrained in his posts though. Or maybe he was getting thrills from winding everyone up.