More bias on Retro Gamer...

[AMSDOS]

That bit is written by a C64 fanboy!!1one

Not really... freelancers have to provide screenshots they've taken when submitting articles, web finds aren't allowed and the editorial team use a selection of what they've been sent. Sometimes the freelancers don't send in enough, others they send too much and the people doing the layout take their pick.

Makes sense if Freelancers aren't out there sourcing Amstrad screenshots, the people putting the magazine together are only going to use what they have.

It's the feedback they get via email or on rare occasions through the post that tends to be given more weight and that's the best way to make a point as well.

Would they Generally go for relevant stuff that gets sent to them, or are they usually are specific material?

[arnoldemu]

I'm curious if the RG team actually know which computers are used by their customers.

I don't think it's always about which computers their customers use, more which computers their customers are interested in.

A lot of it is nostalgia I believe, which computers their readers used to own, or used to play on with their friends, the music that was around at that time, which arcade machines they played on.

For me, it's nostalgia. I played on many machines when I was younger and I played on arcade machines when I was on holiday. I remember those times, they were happy and fun. I would save £15 for holiday and spend it all on arcade machines, outrun, bombjack, super sprint, road blasters.. fantastic!

[zeropolis79]

I remember a Dizzy article in RG seemed to ignore the CPC... they also claimed Dizzy originated on the Spectrum..

An box-out about covertape specials ignored the AA37 Dizzy Special Edition even though it came out before Crash's version and while they mentioned Your Sinclair hosted the complete game on their tape, AA's tape containing the same game was also ignored.

(only reason I was looking at the article was for the original Fantasy World Dizzy map)..

(ironically, I was talking to someone about my Dizzy book and he asked what format will I be taking screenshots from. I told him that I would be taking shots primarily from the CPC and Amiga versions but would be showing certain Spectrum and C64 shots, he accused me of bias against the Speccy. I countered saying considering the game originated on the CPC, it would be fitting and he re-countered saying no-one would buy it if there were next to no Spectrum shots)

[Gryzor]

I countered saying considering the game originated on the CPC, it would be fitting and he re-countered saying no-one would buy it if there were next to no Spectrum shots)

So basically he said you must be biased towards the Speccy because you'll sell more. Ok.

[Puresox]

Don't read the Mag myself , I don't know whether they have a regular feature . on the more obscure systems , once a month , would seem like a reasonable approach .

[dcdrac]

So basically he said you must be biased towards the Speccy because you'll sell more. Ok.

It is a bit like a special on Freescape was biased because it was developed on Amstrad CPCs and then does not mention the fact it was not developed on Spectrums

[Gryzor]

@Puresox : Oh yeah, I would really love them to cover more obscure systems. They actually do that from time to time, but not enough, I think. And I'd like to know more about *older* systems...


@dcdrac : oh actually they did mention it was developed on a 6128, which makes it all the more ridiculous The article actually starts with the Spectrum developer saying he was puzzled as to how he would fit all that on a Spectrum, so you can see it was a one-sided article right from the beginning...

[arnoldemu]

So basically he said you must be biased towards the Speccy because you'll sell more. Ok.

For most games/programs they do a comparison showing Speccy, C64, Amstrad, MSX etc.
Yet in this example, no Amstrad screens at all.

Why not show each machine as they normally do? Or show a load of CPC screens because it was developed on CPC, then go and show a machine comparison too?

[Gryzor]

...becauuuuuse... Bias? Can't think anything else, really, hence the title of the thread...

[zeropolis79]

 

For most games/programs they do a comparison showing Speccy, C64, Amstrad, MSX etc.
Yet in this example, no Amstrad screens at all.

Why not show each machine as they normally do? Or show a load of CPC screens because it was developed on CPC, then go and show a machine comparison too?

Oh, there will be comparison shots but the CPC versions will be the primary 8-bit machine shown in the screenshots.

[ivarf]

So, last night I started reading RG141. In it there's a rather nice article on Driller. What really bothered me, though, was that in four pages these were the screenshots used:


-ZX Spectrum: 7 (including 2 giant background ones)
-Amiga: 2
-Other systems: 0.
-CPC: zero.


Yes. A game developed, as also mentioned indeed in the article, on a 6128, gets zero screenshots from the platform. And, it is mentioned that it was developed on a 6128 but somehow they managed to make the article about the Speccy.


Between this, Picachu covers and Halo spreads I'm seriously considering not renewing my subscription...

I do not feel it is a problem with Retro Gamer as such, it is the Chris Andrew that wrote that article that is solidy based in the Speccy camp. Otherwise he would have written something about the look and feel of the Amstrad version. BTW, do we know that the Amstrad was developed first for the Amstrad CPC? That a game was developed on a machine doesn't mean that it was developed for it.


In the same magazine, in the System 3 article, there is a quite large picture from the Amstrad version of IK+. For me that picture felt a bit out of place and felt even more wrong as Driller had no CPC shots.


An article that needs Amstrad CPC shots doesn't get it and other articles where the CPC isn't even mentioned gets Amstrad screenshots. Go figure. Its all dependent on who does what in my opinion

[chinnyhill10]

I do not feel it is a problem with Retro Gamer as such, it is the Chris Andrew that wrote that article that is solidy based in the Speccy camp.

A professional shouldn't let bias come through in any article.

[Gryzor]

As I replied in the RG forum thread, the Freescape engine was developed on the CPC, the games too were developed on the machine and the Speccy version was, as stated clearly in the article, a port from the CPC.

And, as chinnyhill10 said, I really don't get why anyone would distinguish between the authors and the magazine.  It's like saying a publication is shite, but it's not the publication's fault but the authors'. Heck, I know I'd do a more balanced job than that If you pick biased authors for your staff then whose fault is it? After all, that's what editorial oversight is there for. You mean to tell me no one took a look before it went to press?

[Xyphoe]

If you're upset about Retro Gamer, well... you won't be happy about the new documentary "Bedrooms To Billions". Not a single solitary mention of the Amstrad. Just one 2 second clip of Robocop.

[Gryzor]

Heheh What machines get mentioned?

[Gryzor]

Ah FFS... look at a reply I got from Merman on the RG forum:

I think it's wrong to use the word bias here.

As a writer myself, I know how hard it can be to source screenshots. I always try to balance between formats whenever possible, but time restrictions often lead to me grabbing more from the formats/emulators I am familiar with.

And at the editorial stage there are challenges in terms of size and colour, fitting into the page layout and selecting what looks interesting.

Remember, it's NOT just grabbing screenshots from the Web and using them - that is not allowed without direct permission of the hosting site.

Where to begin... In any case here's what I wrote back:

Hard to source screenshots?

I had never taken Speccy screenshots before. It took me literally 3.5 minutes (I timed it) to download Spectaculator, find and download Driller, load it and find how to take a screenshot (which is more complex than with CPC emulators). If nothing else, I guess the article takes a fair time to write and polish - if you can't devote a few minutes to take the necessary screenshots then go online and ask for someone to take one for you - by the time your article is finished you're sure to have dozens of them.

And what could be more interesting than different screenshots from different systems? Are you implying that looking at the Speccy again and again is more interesting?

If nothing else, if I were to write an article about a game I'd make sure I played it on all relevant platforms. You know, what games journalists have been doing since the 80s. And this would have enabled me to take screenshots as well.

But with this article, I'm afraid it *is* bias, not just shoddy work. It's not only that the author (apologies, don't remember who it was) didn't spend the least amount of time to do the absolute basic in terms of homework, but from the off it does show that the article is Spectrum-centric despite mentioning it was developed on the CPC.

[seanb]

If you're upset about Retro Gamer, well... you won't be happy about the new documentary "Bedrooms To Billions". Not a single solitary mention of the Amstrad. Just one 2 second clip of Robocop.

So it finally got made.
I'll still watch it and learn something from it but behind gritted teeth 

[seanb]

@Gryzor maybe he could address the issue of articles that tell you a game was first developed on one system but didn't have any screenshots from said system.

Was it retro gamer that said dizzy was first made on a speccy?

[Gryzor]

I think his argument is "we're not biased, just useless". I mean, how the fuck is it possible for a geek NOT to be able to take a screenshot? It's not like he's got to learn advanced photoshop skills!

I don't remember about Dizzy to be honest...

[Carnivius]

Was it retro gamer that said dizzy was first made on a speccy?

Wah?  Did they?  Whoever it was deserves an egg thrown in their face!

[TFM]

An... EGG... *rofl*

[MacDeath]

Also they never mention the Thomson or the Enterprise... talk about biased dudes...

[Gryzor]

Well that's a conscious decision on their part because the dedicated communities for those machines are even smaller -much smaller- than ours.

But that's a shame, I think. We're well past the phase where we rediscovered the machines of our childhoods and I'm sure that lots of people, like me, would love to learn more about the lesser systems.

[MacDeath]

still they may not even spot the difference...

MO5

Speccy

[remax]

Well that's a conscious decision on their part because the dedicated communities for those machines are even smaller -much smaller- than ours.

But that's a shame, I think. We're well past the phase where we rediscovered the machines of our childhoods and I'm sure that lots of people, like me, would love to learn more about the lesser systems.

That's always the same : At first they have nothing, they take risks by going on a very niche market (who would have said that a magazine about retro computing would have been so succesful at the time), then when they become sucessful, they are afraid to go back down the ladder and then they begin targeting main stream audience more and more and become reluctant to take more risks.