gman72 wrote:markopoloman wrote:I'd like to see more articles written like the Kick Off one.
Actually, yes, thats a really good idea. A monthly opinion piece, positive or negative, about a well known retro game or series presenting an alternative viewpoint would be very refreshing.
noobish hat wrote:Freelancers aren't supposed to write opinion pieces, and don't write in the first person.
Antiriad2097 wrote:noobish hat wrote:Freelancers aren't supposed to write opinion pieces, and don't write in the first person.
Says who? They'll write what they were commissioned to do by Darran, so if he wants an opinion piece from a freelancer he'll get it.
Some of you lot wouldn't have lasted five minutes as an Oric owner, practically everyone is negative about it.
The Beans wrote:There's certainly nothing definitive about the KO article judging by the response.
Antiriad2097 wrote:The Beans wrote:There's certainly nothing definitive about the KO article judging by the response.
Judge it by the facts within the article and you'll find a definitive guide.
The Beans wrote:Scapegoat wrote:goonergaz wrote: All we asked for was a balanced article but clearly this is not an acceptable request, so I simply don't want to read more articles of hate.
That's the nub of the matter, why do you want a balanced article? Why can't RG print an entertaining opinion piece?
He's probably the same as me. He wants to read an article about a game rather than what somebody thinks about a game. Fact and information rather than opinion. If I want opinions I can visit a forum.
This KO2 row is why I prefer writers to maintain some distance from the readership. It looks as if the author was a bad choice because he's apparently widely regarded as being biased in favour of Sensible Soccer. It doesn't even matter whether that's true or not, it's the perception by others that counts here. A perception that was always going to colour people's view of the article.
When I pay money for a magazine I expect the writers to know their stuff and I expect no bias or hidden agendas. If there's an opinion piece I want both sides. I want a balanced article. Even in a review I want the pros and the cons. But the author must have credibility, even if it's an illusion created by distance from the readership. It's the difference between a fanzine and a professional magazine to me. The difference between a worthy article and just another mouth putting out a forum post because they have an axe to grind
When you don't know much about the author you tend to read without any preconceptions. When the author is known, and outspoken, it's too easy to project their personality into the article and see a lot of things that aren't there. And also see the obvious negativity that actually is there.
I'm hoping it's a one-off.
goonergaz wrote:Twist it all you like but you did state several times how Sensi sold vastly better than KO did. You also stated several times how KO didn't sell at all well.
Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote:What I didn't do, however, was claim that as the reason why it was a better game.
goonergaz wrote:totally ignoring the valid points made throught this thread.
Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote:Such as?
goonergaz wrote:it may not be many but clearly saying the game is sXXt is just totally wrong
Rev. Stuart Campbell wrote:No it isn't. I think you'll find that concludes the debate.
noobish hat wrote:EDIT: I also don't really recall ever seeing a first-name-only in an article intro. What could be more explicit than putting the author's name in the intro, anyway?
The Beans wrote:Yes. It's up to the editor to get a handle on what's what. In the case of the "definitive" articles it's probably time for a name change.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests