Editorial / Ray Bowden

One of the strange things about the material coming in recently is that
not only are we getting more articles but that the articles themselves
are getting longer! While this suggests a greater emphasis by
contributors on an in depth, detailed article it does mean that Phoenix
is in danger of becoming a two- or even one-article magazine - something
that is not sought according to earlier feedback information. Apart from
the usefulness of shorter articles in terms of laying out the magazine,
they quite obviously add variety to an issue. I personally feel that the
'ultra-short' article (almost comment?) has another function to fulfil,
hence question 47 in this issue's feedback.

A one-, two- or even three-page review of a game has the advantage of
in-depth detailing but it is still, usually, a single personal
point-of-view. If we can balance this type of article with a variety of
gamers opinions or comments on the game in question we might be able to
project an even more valid and objective point of view. Anyway we'll see
what you have to say in your feedback before we make a start.

Considering the current healthy state of the 'article bank' it is even
more gratifying to know that almost one in three of those who returned
feed-back cards are considering supplying material for publication.
Since the feedback sample was taken over 250 replies this must mean at
least another 80 articles on the way. When one considers that the
feedback samples seem to be coming from a varying selection of readers
this figure is probably very much greater. The problem in future issues
looks like being not so much what to print as where to print it!