I am going to reply here to a commonly encountered "criticism" about this article. The idea is that the postscript at the end is wrong...
PS. The UK magazine Retro Gamer must surely be the stupidest-titled videogame magazine ever. Because the games it covers are in no way, shape or form "retro" -- they are simply old for fuck's sake! -- for a game to qualify as retro it must be contemporary! I mean, for the love of Christ, there's absolutely nothing retro about stuff like Gradius!
... because the magazine is called Retro Gamer not Retro Games. I.e. the games it covers are not the ones which are supposed to be retro -- the word 'retro' is supposed to refer to the people playing them.
This is all pure humbug invented after the magazine's editors read my article, in a pathetic attempt to cover their stupidity. The proof is in the magazine itself. Again and again -- AND AGAIN -- they call games like Gradius "retro" while largely ignoring the REAL retro games such as DUX, or Yuusha no Kuse ni Namaiki Da or whatever. And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they apply the retro label to stuff like modern STGs or fighting games -- which are of course not retro.
And even if we accept that the concept of the "Retro Gamer" as someone who plays old games is a valid one, and that the magazine specializes in simply covering OLD GAMES (as opposed to old-style games, meaning retro) that still doesn't explain how games like, say, Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2, which is reviewed in the latest issue, are given coverage. Geometry Wars 2 is not old, after all -- it's clearly new and truly retro, so yeah.
Nice try, retro boys, but no cigar.