racketboy.com

BoneSnapDeez wrote:

Blu wrote:Oh yeah Ellert, I don't disagree with you at all. However, it went quickly from constructive criticism to nearly 4chan-level of rabid fanboyism with the bandwagon jumping. Deuce seemed like the only reasonable poster on the first few pages.

Way off topic, but didya know Deuce from the Neo Geo forums translated Ys: The Oath in Felghana into English? Yup.

Hardly Off-topic! Deuce's patience in his posting translates into his patience and dedication that was reflective of that work for Ys.

EllertMichael: I totally understand all the points you've made. My point is there should be a level of decorum and respect when arguing the finer points to a hobby. I think overall we're in agreement.

At the same time, I don't feel like I'm diehard to the point that I foam at the mouth when an article doesn't do the game series or my hobby justice. I'm a huge soccer fan, and I know I'm in the minority in this country with my sport. I don't get pissed when someone doesn't share the same appreciation or criticizes my choice of sport or team.

So by that logic, if I do have criticisms, do I bring them up in a way that is meant to educate or seek clarification to someone's intentions towards my hobbies, or do I come off with a defensive tone that proves I have a chip on my shoulder? I also ask if one article is going to tarnish a series' overall reputation? Consider the impacts of the article: even if the author is overtly snarky, if it gets someone to try the games, you've got someone who can add to the conversation. If they disagree cool, build that community's solidarity of opinion and set the record straight.

I'm fine with people who want to set the record straight, just do it in a manner that doesn't shout "I'm pretentious and you don't want to be around me."

Blu wrote: I'm a huge soccer fan

A Blulligan!

EllertMichael wrote:Who could disagree with this?
No one here ever said "Don't read Retro Gamer because of one bad article they published."

I was more going back to the Norris thing about how the articles in RG weren't deep enough. I think I was maybe stepping into the middle of a conversation without having read it all.

noiseredux wrote:

EllertMichael wrote:Who could disagree with this?
No one here ever said "Don't read Retro Gamer because of one bad article they published."

I was more going back to the Norris thing about how the articles in RG weren't deep enough. I think I was maybe stepping into the middle of a conversation without having read it all.

Not everything can be as cool as this:

dsheinem wrote:

Blu wrote: I'm a huge soccer fan

A Blulligan!

If we could have custom titles, I'd adopt that one immediately. For now, a signature will have to do.

noiseredux wrote:I was more going back to the Norris thing about how the articles in RG weren't deep enough. I think I was maybe stepping into the middle of a conversation without having read it all.

Please note that my standards are ridiculously high.

General_Norris wrote:

noiseredux wrote:I was more going back to the Norris thing about how the articles in RG weren't deep enough. I think I was maybe stepping into the middle of a conversation without having read it all.

Please note that my standards are ridiculously high.

I'd say your standards are more "specific" than "high."

I own one issue of Retro Gamer - issue 84.



I found it a fun read, but haven't sought out more issues yet. I know they have omnibi of collected issues - which sound appealing, but are awfully rare/expensive.

Thankfully, I kickstarted the upcoming US Retro Magazine, can't wait for the premiere issue. That should be more than enough retro mag goodness for me.

Hey, that's the issue I have too!

noiseredux wrote:I'd say your standards are more "specific" than "high."

Fair enough

EllertMichael wrote:Who could disagree with this?
No one here ever said "Don't read Retro Gamer because of one bad article they published."

Actually, yeah, General Norris said that it was a bad magazine. Which is who I was talking to until you gave me your argument based on that article. I think our lines just got crossed, there.