A lot of it seems so obvious to us that it's hard to convince the publisher. I mean, duh, people like reading about classic gaming (to wit; armchair arcade, etc.) Much of what we've been asked to prove is painfully obvious to most of us: there is an audience for well-written, well-researched material about game history.

The problem is that the mass media seems to think that only fluff will sell. Thus, the depressingly bad stuff on G4 and most websites. Meanwhile, a carefully researched and deadly accurate piece such as our Vectrex article goes mostly unnoticed. What gets the attention? Oh, the latest "10 Games that Changed History by Not Actually Changing History But Hell it's somehow related to Wii so w00t woot" piece on ign. Meh.

My guess is that the publishers are seriously underestimating the intelligence of the "average joe." My approach has always been (and you know it's true); give them what YOU would want to read. If it doesn't measure up, don't release it yet. Keep at it. We've always believed here at AA that the best way to build an audience is by actually caring about the product. We work hard to bring you high quality content that you can depend on. If we are unsure about something, we make that clear and ask for help. If you compare that to the latest piece on XYZ game site you know we've got a special formula here at AA.

Argh, okay. Rant over. :)