Issue 101 Feedback Thread

[The Laird]

A fact would be "The famicom launched in 1983 in Japan."

An opinion would be:

* "The Japanese gaming giant has always known how we want to enjoy our games, years in advance."

And if that were true then the NES would have been a success in Europe, we all know it wasn't.

[joefish]

Just read the Ocean and Beau-Jolly articles and thought they were excellent.

I never actually bought a Beau-Jolly compilation though. They never really did anything interesting or attention-getting with the packaging. I also don't know if they expected everyone to recognise all the game titles, as I don't recall ever being that impressed by a line-up. Them deliberately avoiding themes and going for a wide range of genres in each pack certainly failed to appeal to me.

[DreamcastRIP]

fanboys are annoying, but isn't this a more of an opinion piece by a enthusiastic collector of nintendo stuff? i thought people wanted more opinion stuff in the mag?

Having opinions is fine ("game X was an absolute favourite of mine"), but parlaying certain opinions as objective facts is not fine. A hazy mishmash of opinion and fact does not sit well. A better article would make the distinctions clear.

Absolutely. The feature wasn't an "opinion piece" and quite frankly it bemuses me that anyone could sensibly claim it is given the evidence I've quoted here in this thread. As I stated in my original post on this matter,

... Don't get me wrong, articles in RG can be great when they show passion and enthusiasm for any particular game or system. This article at times does something quite different though. It crosses the line into the territory of rabid fanboyism brimming with unproven claims, factual inaccuracies and revisionist history. In such instances the magazine's journalistic integrity risks coming into question, imho. A major let-down in an otherwise excellent issue of RG.

[HEAVYface]

fanboys are annoying, but isn't this a more of an opinion piece by a enthusiastic collector of nintendo stuff? i thought people wanted more opinion stuff in the mag?

Having opinions is fine ("game X was an absolute favourite of mine"), but parlaying certain opinions as objective facts is not fine. A hazy mishmash of opinion and fact does not sit well. A better article would make the distinctions clear.

Absolutely. The feature wasn't an "opinion piece" and quite frankly it bemuses me that anyone could sensibly claim it is given the evidence I've quoted here in this thread. As I stated in my original post on this matter,

... Don't get me wrong, articles in RG can be great when they show passion and enthusiasm for any particular game or system. This article at times does something quite different though. It crosses the line into the territory of rabid fanboyism brimming with unproven claims, factual inaccuracies and revisionist history. In such instances the magazine's journalistic integrity risks coming into question, imho. A major let-down in an otherwise excellent issue of RG.

to be honest i was playing devils advocate a bit. ideally, you'll get a reponse from the author of the article.

i don't read newspapers because of the very issue you have highlighted - opinion stated as fact.

[DreamcastRIP]

...ideally, you'll get a reponse from the author of the article.

i don't read newspapers because of the very issue you have highlighted - opinion stated as fact.

Yes, I suppose that would be the ideal outcome. Several members have provided feedback on the matter and there has yet to be any response from Darran, Lorfarius and/or Adam Buchanan (if he's a member here).

[Darran@Retro Gamer]

I didn't write the article, and I know or care little for the NES, which is why we pay people who have the relevant knowledge to write things we are not hot on. The collectors guide has never been a history piece, it's a guide to collecting. Nothing more nothing less.

[DreamcastRIP]

... which is why we pay people who have the relevant knowledge to write things we are not hot on. The collectors guide has never been a history piece, it's a guide to collecting. Nothing more nothing less.

So are you ambivalent to the detailed feedback provided here regarding the article?

It would very much appear the writer of said article let the side down badly.

If the article was intended solely as a guide for collectors then why permit it to include so much history?

[The Laird]

If the article was intended solely as a guide for collectors then why permit it to include so much revisionist history?

Fixed

[Darran@Retro Gamer]

Not at all. It's obvious that there are potential issues with facts here, but it's also clear that posters themselves are letting their own opinions of the machine come into it. I'll be taking it up with the freelancers and take it from there.

[DreamcastRIP]

Not at all. It's obvious that there are potential issues with facts here, but it's also clear that posters themselves are letting their own opinions of the machine come into it. I'll be taking it up with the freelancers and take it from there.

"Potential issues with the facts"? Are you Tony Blair in disguise?

[the_hawk]

Oh please don't let RG just become a boring list of indisputable facts.

NES, Amstrad, the N64 & Neo Geo do nothing for me, but jeeze I'd far rather I'd far rather some keen as mustard writer with an obvious love for a system wax lyrical about them than just list a bunch of facts & timelines spouted at me that I could find out with a swift internet search....even if it's a system I have absolutely no time for.

[DreamcastRIP]

Oh please don't let RG just become a boring list of indisputable facts.

NES, Amstrad, the N64 & Neo Geo do nothing for me, but jeeze I'd far rather I'd far rather some keen as mustard writer with an obvious love for a system wax lyrical about them than just list a bunch of facts & timelines spouted at me that I could find out with a swift internet search....even if it's a system I have absolutely no time for.

You are needlessly distorting what has been said. Nobody at any time has intimated they would wish to see RG do what you've outlined. Quite the opposite in fact as indicated in my original post on the matter,

... Don't get me wrong, articles in RG can be great when they show passion and enthusiasm for any particular game or system. This article at times does something quite different though. It crosses the line into the territory of rabid fanboyism brimming with unproven claims, factual inaccuracies and revisionist history. In such instances the magazine's journalistic integrity risks coming into question, imho. A major let-down in an otherwise excellent issue of RG.

[the_hawk]

I'm not distorting anything, needlessly or otherwise, I just stated a preference for the type of articles I wanted to see in the magazine.

[DreamcastRIP]

I'm not distorting anything, needlessly or otherwise, I just stated a preference for the type of articles I wanted to see in the magazine.

My apologies then. It wasn't necessarily clear whether you were simply making a general comment about RG or were posting in the context of the ongoing debate. I assumed it was the latter given that you posted right here at this point in the discussion.

The above quote from my first post regarding this month's 'Collector's Guide' debacle of course indicates I'm in total agreement with you. I'm all for passion and enthusiasm in RG as long as what is printed isn't ruined by a load of gross factual inaccuracies and revisionist history as was the case in this instance.

[Benway68]

Best issue ever! Okay, I'm biassed, coz I'm on page 29. (SteveBenway on YouTube... big collection, lots of silly gameplay vids, blah blah)
Thanks Mike!
I noticed Darren, in other comments here, talking about using freelancers, well... I strongly recommend using Mike more often, coz his articles are excellent and he knows what he's talking about