"New Look" Wargames Illustrated

[dm]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Apologies if this has been covered before (I couldn't find any reference to
it but then I could have missed it) - but does anyone have any thoughts on
the "New Look" Wargames Illustrated? Personally I think that, whilst it all
looks very nice and glossy the useful content has decreased (what with a
perception of more frequent use of photos which, despite being very nice,
don't actually add much to the articles they support) and an increase in
font size. I would be much happier if Duncan reverted to the original style.
What do you think?

DM

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

Hi David,

I have not seen the 'new' style yet. But I stopped buying WI some time ago
because of lack of 'content', i.e. not pictures and advertisements. So I
suspect this is just another step on a long and already slippery road.


"DM" <david.manley@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cbtnvc$g67$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> Apologies if this has been covered before (I couldn't find any reference
to
> it but then I could have missed it) - but does anyone have any thoughts on
> the "New Look" Wargames Illustrated? Personally I think that, whilst it
all
> looks very nice and glossy the useful content has decreased (what with a
> perception of more frequent use of photos which, despite being very nice,
> don't actually add much to the articles they support) and an increase in
> font size. I would be much happier if Duncan reverted to the original
style.
> What do you think?
>
> DM
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

In message <cbtnvc$g67$1@titan.btinternet.com>, DM
<david.manley@btinternet.com> writes
>Apologies if this has been covered before (I couldn't find any reference to
>it but then I could have missed it) - but does anyone have any thoughts on
>the "New Look" Wargames Illustrated? Personally I think that, whilst it all
>looks very nice and glossy the useful content has decreased (what with a
>perception of more frequent use of photos which, despite being very nice,
>don't actually add much to the articles they support) and an increase in
>font size. I would be much happier if Duncan reverted to the original style.
>What do you think?
>
I am concerned that the "full colour throughout" is already leading to
artistic use of coloured fonts and backgrounds, to the severe detriment
of readability. Since the invention of papyrus, people have been
striving for whiter paper and blacker ink, for the very good reason that
these will improve contrast and so make reading easier. Now some
clever-dick editor or advertiser decides that it will look cool on the
page to use blue ink on a pale blue background, or to use an image as
background to text in order to add atmosphere. So far the worst examples
seem to be in the adverts rather than the editorial, but they need to
keep in mind the fundamental purpose of publishing, which is to produce
readable text.
--
John Secker

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

In my opinion, WI is all about photos - so I don't mind the new format. More
color photos =more reason for its existence. I gave up on content a few years
ago when the content turned into articles about pirates, darkest africa -
essentially WF advertorials.

Brent