Advertorials with no game content in Dragon

[billd91]

I miss the non-D&D articles as well. I got interested in Traveller thanks to The Dragon back in the day.
Non-D&D material doesn't bother me a bit. I prefer it to the fiction.

 

[Arnwyn]

It doesn't belong. Never did, but in the dark ages before the Internet, it was at least excusable because there weren't that many avenues through which gamers could get that kind of info. Nowadays, even the gaming magazines can't compete with the internet for providing computer-game info.

Exactly.

I can see putting "stuff that D&D players might like" (read: non-D&D stuff) in Dragon back in the days when there was no such thing as the internet.

Now? It's ridiculous to do so (video games, books, or otherwise).

 

[Arnwyn]

Double post? Whoops.

 

[delericho]

I thought #349 was an exceptional issue, between the Demonomicon and the article on the Horde. That being the case, if they want to dedicate two pages to something I consider of no value at all, I'm not going to complain.

 

[johnnype]

I found the article to be a waste of space. However, the magazine is in sore need of more revenue so I don't see this feature going away any time soon. Once again we see the cripling affect of money on creativity. Tsk, tsk...

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

The point, for me at least, isn't about Dragon confusing its focus as a D&D magazine (though that is a legitimate concern), nor is it about ads disguised as articles (though that's also something worth talking about). For me, the point is that this article, and future articles, could easily be tied back to D&D by including some D&D mechanical material, even if only a little. Dragon has a rich history of "D&D-izing" computer games in their Silicon Sorcery articles (though I think those are called Divine Inspirations now), and to have the magazine engage in dedicated coverage of new video games that have a fantasy flavor, but not give us any D&D adaptations of those games is an opportunity that will be missed over and over again.

The last time I saw a Final Fantasy related article in Dragon, they provided the game statistics for a chocobo. Why are they putting this in First Watch and not in Silicon Sorcery? They covered Shadow of the Colossus that way.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I miss the non-D&D articles as well. I got interested in Traveller thanks to The Dragon back in the day.
Non-D&D material doesn't bother me a bit. I prefer it to the fiction.

At least Traveller is RPG related. Final Fantasy is only as RPG related as Harry Potter is. There's magic, adventure, and some swords in both. But I don't want to see Harry Potter in Dragon either.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I found the article to be a waste of space. However, the magazine is in sore need of more revenue so I don't see this feature going away any time soon. Once again we see the cripling affect of money on creativity. Tsk, tsk...

I would be astonished if Final Fantasy felt they had to buy premium-priced advertorial space to hype their game. The entire D&D hobby is only a small fraction of the masses who buy FF.

Unless someone at Paizo flat-out says they were paid to run it (I wouldn't hold your breath), I'd assume they were telling the truth: They thought a lot of Dragon readers would be interested in the game.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Don't like it, either. For me, Dragon's not about things D&D players like. It's about D&D. D&D-related games, okay. Stuff like NWN2. Silicon Sorcery articles turning computer game stuff into D&D material, cool. Big computer game ads - disguised as articles no less. No. That's not the "genuine D&D content" I pay for.

QFT. I'm old enough to have purchased Dragon when it was the "kitchen sink" of gaming. I hated it then, and I hate that concept now. I buy it for D&D material -- I don't want sci fi RPGs, or computer games (unless they are D&D) or board games (likewise).

Silicon Sorcery -- take a game, and adapt elements for D&D play with D&D mechanics, is fine.

 

[DaveMage]

If it's an ad, then label it as an ad. I'm fine with that.

I don't want advertisements disguised as objective articles, though.