LMAO at how this guy gets blown off in Next Gen magazine

[Emperor Megas]

No, but there was a shocking abundance of "3D sucks" back then. For every person who bought Super Mario 64 there was probably somebody decrying how it ruined Mario because sprite art was dying. The kicker? They were usually the same person wearing two different hats depending on the day.

I never met any of those people back then. I'm not saying you're wrong about them or anything, I just didn't encounter into any of that, personally. I was the only person in my circle of friends who didn't care for the majority of early 3D games. Everyone I knew who gamed was enamored by 3D graphics; you couldn't tell them ANYTHING negative about 3D games, especially if it was something on the PSX or the N64. They'd go on able how awesome and real everything looked, and I'd ask them if they were nuts. Blocky ass humans figures made of flat shaded polygons (with extremely low polygon count) didn't look real -- it looked like a mess.

[TonyTheTiger]

There was an extremely vocal minority, particularly around the time FFVII came out, that began decrying 3D as the death of "classic" gaming. It was particularly annoying since FFVII isn't that much different from FFVI as far as the total composition of the game is concerned. Outside of the beefed up visuals, they function similarly. What these people were complaining about was merely the lack of 16-bit sprites and tiles. I think given the time frame during which this letter was submitted, there was probably at least a noticeable amount of that kind of stuff coming in. I don't think it's inappropriate at all to print one of the more aggressive letters and say "Yeah, whatever" to the entire lot of them.

The issue I picked up on, even back then as a middle school student, was that these people would complain...and then keep playing the game. So even the complainers weren't entirely genuine with their disgust. It was straight up "I miss the old days." Which was funny since "the old days" were about a year or two prior.

[kedawa]

I actually really like certain types of early 3D, especially vector graphics and flat shaded polys. It's the pixelated, warping textures and horrible clipping and pop-in that I can't handle. Even back in the mid nineties, I looked at the PS1, Saturn, etc. as the 3D equivalents of the NES in that they could render the graphics, but with a lot of goofy graphical idiosyncrasies.

[Arkhan]

blowing off a letter, no matter how obnoxious it is to some, and publishing it, just makes the magazine as a whole lose its credibility and become "that magazine where they act like dicks".

It turns into the preppy clique in highschool basically.

If they didn't want to give the kid a valid response they should have just never published that letter. They're supposed to be professional. They're not the angsty teens sending out the letters..... they're the "professional" journalists charging $$ for a magazine.

Its not like those were the only like 5 letters for the month. Find different, more useful ones to pad the magazine.

[TonyTheTiger]

If you're trying to avoid people acting like dicks you're in the wrong hobby.

Not saying it's necessarily a good thing but sometimes it's refreshing to see pompous jackasses get a taste of their own medicine when somebody calls them out for acting like Comic Book Guy. The door swings both ways. I actually find the lack of a PR filter nice for a change when most of the world is too cautious of what they say and how they say it eventually settling on a series of words that say absolutely nothing.

Assuming that printing the letter was going to happen, what would have been a more professional response? "We humbly disagree, sir, because 3D has opened the doors to...blah blah blah"? The "yeah, whatever" comment would be equally applicable to that kind of answer. Sure, it's more professional. It's also useless when the point that is meant to be conveyed is "You're a blowhard and so is everybody who rants like you do."

If anything, the purpose of printing the letter and being so dismissive about it is to create some sense of self awareness among the readership that the hobby tends to breed that kind of...and I hate to use such a cliche word...fanboyism. Call it a cautionary tale if you want. "Be careful or you might end up like this guy."

[Arkhan]

The general public can act like dicks all they want. Thats entirely different.

They're not trying to play themselves off as professional journalists in a for-profit magazine.

They should have either

1) Not published it and filled the space with a more useful letter/response. I am sureeeee there was a better letter they could have took the time to address. Some useful letter, written by a thoughtful person, didn't make the cut so they could stretch their journalist-dicks to a "yeah wutevarz"

2) Responded in a way that is above the whole being a dick mannerism.

[j_factor]

Once again, though... it's Next Generation. The "cutting edge" game magazine. They were a bunch of technophile snobs, and proud of it. It's even implied by the name, Next Generation, that the magazine is focused a certain way. Writing this kind of letter to this particular magazine is like complaining about Microsoft's legacy support to Computer Power User.

[Arkhan]

so cutting edge means snooty dickbags?

cool.


I remember when cutting edge was alot more legit than this.

[TonyTheTiger]

No, it means calling out bullshit when you smell it. Like I said above, this wasn't an isolated incident. That kind of attitude was surprisingly commonplace. The editors were making a statement to all the Comic Book Guys out there, not just the one who wrote the letter. You keep saying to be more professional but there really isn't a better way to say it than "yeah, whatever." That's the most concise and direct way to tell everybody that the argument is passe and they should stop making it. Any response more "professional" would not be able to convey the same thing. How do you "professionally" tell somebody that they aren't worth listening to? And saying not to print the letter doesn't solve anything since, again, this was a pretty common attitude back then so there's no fault in addressing it.

[Icarus Moonsight]

How do you "professionally" tell somebody that they aren't worth listening to?

Either refutation or indifference, not mockery. Surely, if it's not worthy of their reading, why put it out for your public? I'd have to say that they didn't agree with the sentiments, vehemently, but laughed at the letter enough and assumed that they would get a similar response out of their readers putting it to print.

Blowback.

[TonyTheTiger]

That was indifference.

[Icarus Moonsight]

On the surface, that is what they intended. Any response at all is recognition, which is anything but indifference. You first have to address something in order to dismiss it. Even if the dismissal is the entirety of your purpose. That is why it is so insulting/amusing. If it wasn't, then it'd be a total waste of effort.

[TonyTheTiger]

But it's a letter to the editor section. That's a catch 22. It's designed to give voice to a cross section of the community. If they didn't print the letters they wanted to dismiss that would be an even greater disservice. And it would make the entire section pointless since we wouldn't get to see any of the letters reflecting ideas we think are off base enough to justify a dismissive attitude.

[Gameguy]

The magazine could have said, "We still stand by our reviews, though you're entitled to your own opinion". That would have been a bit more polite.

[BetaWolf47]

No, if they chose to publish the letter, they should have explained to him what they thought was wrong with it.

[TonyTheTiger]

The magazine could have said, "We still stand by our reviews, though you're entitled to your own opinion". That would have been a bit more polite.

And completely miss the point in the process. That doesn't say the same thing.

No, if they chose to publish the letter, they should have explained to him what they thought was wrong with it.

And validate the rant in the process. That completely misses the point. That doesn't say the same thing.

[tom]

Wasn't Next Gen the US version of Edge? Yep, they're a bunch of guys with their heads up their arses.

I own these issues, man I never seen a mag with so many mistakes as in Edge:

Issue 1…Oct 1993, Issue 2…Nov 1993, Issue 3…Dec 1993, Issue 4…Jan 1994, Issue 5…Feb 1994, Issue 6…March 1994,
Issue 7…April 1994, Issue 8…May 1994, Issue 9…June 1994, Issue 10…July 1994, Issue 11…Aug 1994,
Issue 12…Sept 1994, Issue 13…Oct 1994, Issue 14…Nov 1994, Issue 15…Dec 1994, Issue 16…Jan 1995,
Issue 17…Feb 1995, Issue 18…March 1995, Issue 19…April 1995, Issue 20…May 1995, Issue 21…June 1995,
Issue 22…July 1995, Issue 23…Aug 1995, Issue 24…Sept 1995, Issue 25…Oct 1995, Issue 26…Nov 1995,
Issue 27…Dec 1995, Issue 28…Jan 1996, Issue 29…Feb 1996, Issue 30…March 1996, Issue 31…April 1996,
Issue 32…May 1996, Issue 33…June 1996, Issue 34…July 1996, Issue 35…Aug 1996, Issue 36…Sept 1996,
Issue 37…Oct 1996, Issue 38…Nov 1996, Issue 39…Dec 1996, Issue 40…Christmas 1996, Issue 41…Jan 1997,
Issue 42…Feb 1997, Issue 43…March 1997, Issue 44…April 1997, Issue 45…May 1997, Issue 46…June 1997,
Issue 47…July 1997, Issue 48…Aug 1997, Issue 49…Sept 1997, Issue 50…Oct 1997, Issue 51…Nov 1997,
Issue 52…Dec 1997, Issue 53…Christmas 1997, Issue 54…Jan 1998, Issue 55…Feb 1998, Issue 56…March 1998,
Issue 57…April 1998, Issue 58…May 1998, Issue 59…June 1998, Issue 60…July 1998, Issue 61…Aug 1998,
Issue 62…Sept 1998, Issue 63…Oct 1998, Issue 64…Nov 1998, Issue 65…Dec 1998, Issue 66…Christmas 1998,
Issue 67…Jan 1999, Issue 68…Feb 1999, Issue 69…March 1999, Issue 70…April 1999, Issue 71…May 1999,
Issue 72…June 1999, Issue 73…July 1999, Issue 74…Aug 1999, Issue 75…Sept 1999, Issue 76…Oct 1999,
Issue 77…Autumn 1999, Issue 78…Nov 1999, Issue 79…Dec 1999, Issue 80…Jan 2000, Issue 81…Feb 2000,
Issue 82…March 2000, Issue 83…April 2000, Issue 84…May 2000, Issue 85…June 2000, Issue 86…July 2000,
Issue 87…Aug 2000, Issue 88…Sept 2000, Issue 90…Nov 2000, Issue 91…Dec 2000, Issue 92…Christmas 2000,
Issue 93…Jan 2001, Issue 94…Feb 2001, Issue 95…March 2001, Issue 96…April 2001, Issue 97…May 2001,
Issue 98…June 2001, Issue 99…July 2001, Issue 100…Aug 2001, Issue 101…Sept 2001, Issue 102…Oct 2001,
Issue 103…Nov 2001, Issue 104…Dec 2001, Issue 105…Christmas 2001, Issue 106…Jan 2002, Issue 107…Feb 2002,
Issue 108…March 2002, Issue 109…April 2002, Issue 110…May 2002, Issue 111…June 2002, Issue 112…July 2002,
Issue 113…Aug 2002, Issue 114…Sept 2002, Issue 115…Oct 2002, Issue 116…Nov 2002, Issue 117…Dec 2002,
Issue 118…Christmas 2002, Issue 119…Jan 2003, Issue 120…Feb 2003, Issue 121…Mar 2003, Issue 122…Apr 2003,
Issue 123…May 2003, Issue 124…June 2003, Issue 125…July 2003, Issue 126…Aug 2003, Issue 127…Sept 2003,
Issue 128…Oct 2003, Issue 129…Nov 2003, Issue 130…Dec 2003, Issue 131…Christmas 2003, Issue 132…Jan 2004,
Issue 133…Feb 2004, Issue 134…Mar 2004, Issue 135…April 2004, Issue 136…May 2004,
Issue 137…June 2004, Issue 149…May 2005

Actually, I had an argument with a Super Play (same stable) guy once, and after I confirmed him with facts (running over several issues (he didn't know/have an answer anyway, all he could do was to make fun of a spelling mistake I did; professional? I think not)), he, in the end, just printed, 'yeah whatever'. So for all I'm concerned, he lost that argument.
Later on in the last issue of SP he was going to be clever and on the last page he printed a statemant how he felt about me, with grammatical errors. That totally backfired...
All I can say is, professionalism from Future Publishing at its best, NOT.

[Arkhan]

And completely miss the point in the process. That doesn't say the same thing.

Good. It shouldn't. One says "were dickbags" and the other says "we disagree but we're legit enough to not be dickbags about it just because were in charge of things"

And validate the rant in the process. That completely misses the point. That doesn't say the same thing.

Printing the letter validates the rant automagically. You printed it, therefore it was valid enough.

There is a right way to dismiss someones argumentative letter, and a wrong way.

Like was already said, all you have to do is say something like

"we respectfully disagree with your rant, and stand by what we said."

[TonyTheTiger]

Good. It shouldn't. One says "were dickbags" and the other says "we disagree but we're legit enough to not be dickbags about it just because were in charge of things"

You're asking for them to be politicians. One of the biggest complaints about politicians is that they don't call people on their shit and give droning PR responses.

Printing the letter validates the rant automagically. You printed it, therefore it was valid enough.

Don't use that argument because it's a catch 22. It's a letter to the editor column. They're supposed to print letters, good and bad. If they don't print letters that reflect an accurate cross section of the readership (in this case the Comic Book Guy caricature) then the entire section is worthless. You keep acting like this was an isolated incident. I'm telling you the sentiment was common. In order to publicly dismiss the sentiment they have to print a letter reflecting it.

There is a right way to dismiss someones argumentative letter, and a wrong way.

Like was already said, all you have to do is say something like

"we respectfully disagree with your rant, and stand by what we said."

You and I have different ideas of what constitutes "dismissal" because that statement of yours says nothing of the sort. What it says is "You might be right but we also might be. Your opinion is equally valid, though." What the response is meant to convey is "your opinion is stupid because you haven't rationally thought it through." How do you respectfully tell somebody they're irrational and not worth listening to?

And don't say "they shouldn't have printed the letter then if they wanted to say that" because that goes back to the catch 22. Then they get slammed for only printing letters that are praiseworthy.

In case you can't tell, I really don't like PR nonsense. Say what you mean and mean what you say. If somebody is being irrational, call them irrational. Don't tell them "we respect your opinion" when you really don't. That's deceptive and disingenuous.

[Arkhan]

what the writer says isn't really off-base though....doesn't sound too irrational to me.

and, case in point, euhhh, 2D fighters still trump 3D fighters... soooooooo.


oh well, i would have been alot friendlier even if the guy was being a pole smoker.