Fucking Annoying Queries Just kidding. The answers to these various questions should hopefully give you a clear idea about the goals, intents, and assholes who run the site (for more information on any specific asshole, click their bio picture on the about page. If you see something that isn't here but should be, feel free to send it in. The address is in the contact section. I would post it here, but you know how it is. Fucking spambots. And now, the questions, as answered by The J Man:

What are the goals of this site?
To review every game ever made.

No, seriously.
Nope, that's pretty much it. We don't actually expect to do it, but it would be a lie to say we have any other goal. I suppose you could expand it to "have the best-written reviews of every game ever made" if you wanted to.

How long have you officially been at this?
2000 I think is the technical length. Most reviews from that period say 2001, because I really don't have good records from that time. 2002 was when the site was first available on the web. March 3rd, 2006 was when the site moved to justgamesretro.com.

So you claim to have been around for x years (since 2002). How come I've never seen you before?
Uhh...  Your own damn fault?  Seriously, part of it is mine as I never wanted to "advertise" when I was on the college server, and only decided to give this a serious go in 2006. That doesn't change the fact that the reviews were written when they say they were, and the site was available on the web for reading. But we've never claimed to be a pillar of the abandonware/old games community, nor do I believe there's any particular credibility in saying "we've been at this for however many years." I don't see it as a contest.

Hey asshole! You gave ___ a terrible score! Did you even PLAY the game? Your site is clearly biased and fucking shit!
First, if you disagree with any of my reviews that strongly, you've already played the game and formed your own opinion about it. So the review is not meant for you. I suppose people get defensive and "fanboyist" about these sorts of things because they legitimately believe their favorite game is a gem and they're worried about negative press keeping others from finding it. Sort of like religion. And the heretics who don't agree with them need to be burned, because theirs is a just and loving God.

So here's the deal. You're welcome to disagree with my reviews, but I won't change them for you. If you're looking at a new game and are worried about my trustworthiness, well, that's why I write so much. If I describe parts about a game that I don't like, but sound pretty cool to you, check it out. I'm not going to get mad if you don't agree with me, that's not why I'm here. I'm not as concerned if you don't agree with the arbitrary numerical score, I just hope I've explained the game and my opinions of it well enough in the body of the review.

What's the deal with the Features section?
Yeah... see... about that... When I first designed the site, and really had no clue what I was going to do with it, it made sense to include a Features section if for no other reason than potential future expansion. Eventually I came up with some clever topics for feature content articles - like comparing a new game with older ones it borrowed ideas from, directly comparing the Genesis and SNES versions of a game, or examining all of the games that follow a certain theme (like good NES titles for Halloween)

Problem is that it required playing a number of games that I hadn't played before. Also, every article was essentially a mini-review. I found that after doing the feature, I never felt like going back and doing a full review on the titles I just wrote about. The initial curiosity was gone, and I felt like I was done with that title and ready to move on. I realized pretty quickly that I was basically blowing my main content for these supplimental pieces, and had to pick one over the other. It made far more sense to write a full review.

That's basically where it's sat for years. I have enough trouble trying to write regular reviews that I don't care much about filling the feature section. There was a time I considered doing articles like those I wrote for the Abandonware Blog, but after that site folded and I lost every piece that I'd written for it, I got a little soured to the whole idea. Maybe in time I'll get around to putting something else in there, but don't start looking forward to that.

What were your first reviews?
Static's first contribution was Darkwing Duck. Mine was (best I can tell) Darkman.

What did this site originally look like?
Oh boy. Well, if you really want to know...

What did the Just Games magazine look like?
You're really bustin' my balls on this one.

So what's the profanity? Are you trying to be "cool"?
We ARE cool.  Supa-cool. We don't need a couple of particular phonetic utterances to make us that way. We're also not trying to be Lenny Bruce or Bill Hicks, or for the videogame world, Tycho from Penny Arcade or Seanbaby. Really. We don't believe we get automatic "street cred" because we talk hard. We're also not going to pussyfoot around how we feel for sensibilities sake.

To put it another way, populating the reviews with words like "fuck" and "shit" are certainly not required, and we can (and have) done without them. I believe the strength of our reviews support themselves without the need for cheap tricks or gimmicks, like "the review site that says fuck." However, there's all sorts of comedic reasons to use such words, as well as making a serious point. If it prevents us from being "mainstream," or if I lose credibility with you because I said a few words Jesus wouldn't have, too bad. I lose some of my honesty if I start censoring myself to appeal to others' proclaimed morals. Basically, if you can't get over it, don't come back.

Can we expect any new systems to be added soon?
No. I recently moved the PC limit to 1999, and do not intend to 2000 and beyond for a long, long time. As we finish out all reviews for a system, we may add new ones, but you can probably determine the glacial pace this would happen at for yourself.

Why not? What about the Colecovision or Atari 2600 or Game Gear or ____?
We have to put some kind of limits on what we do to keep it somewhat practical. I would like to see my name next to a review of every game for every system, but we can't just open the gates to anything. It would be a lot like the Jaguar we recently added, with one review sitting there all alone. You also get into issues of proper emulation for systems, availability of titles, etc. I can tell you we will certainly go back before we go forward, so don't expect PS2 or Xbox reviews for the next decade. What will probably come next are the N64 and the Atari 2600, though I am very interested in bringing on some of the handhelds, specifically the old monochrome Game Boy.

Do you really think you're the best review site ever?
Well, I haven't read every site ever. A Force For Good is probably equal to our thoroughness, but a different kind of humor. I think we're better than the standard GameFAQs or MobyGames user review, and that's primarily what I'm shooting for. There are plenty of user reviews for current games (my eyes still bleed when I look at the numbers of reviews for GTA 3), so we don't throw our hat into that. There are not enough professional quality reviews for older titles, or those that exist are buried in forgotten back-issues of gaming rags, so we're trying to fill that void. We'd like to be an authoritative source on these old titles, and create reviews worth keeping even if this site goes under or either one of us is caught and killed. That's why we try damn hard to do our homework and be insightful. It used to be fun to just lambast a bad game, but I'm starting to enjoy writing an insightful, potentially helpful review just as much.

To answer your question, any and all of that "best site ever" shit is just comedic boasting. We'll let other people decide.

Why no real advertising for the site out on the Internet?
Half of it is that I don't think we're "master reviewers" yet. I strongly believe with every review we write, we become better reviewers. At the very least, we've expanded our mental database and are able to make more accurate comparisons, but like any skill, I believe the quality of our writing improves each time we write. So you could say that I think we're "not yet ready for prime time," and you'd be close. If anything, I'd like a fairly robust review collection.

You also have to consider what advertising would actually do. We're a pretty niche site, reviewing games that very few people play anymore. I don't expect to get major popularity, and wouldn't have the resources or time to support it anyway.

Is this site an online resume for getting a job as a game reviewer?
Emphatically, no. I have no desire to be a staff reviewer anywhere, and no credentials to do it.

Will you ever sell ad space on this site?
Doubtful. Ask me again when people are throwing sacks of money at my door. I can assure you though, that the costs of this site are well absorbed by my real job. You will never see any pissant Google ads or "o pls donate with Paypal 2 help me run my site 4 i am so poor" horseshit coming to JGR.

Can I be a part of the site and review for you?
We're not actively looking for anyone, so it's very unlikely that you'll get an email from us. That being said, feel free to send something if you think you can write regular, consistent reviews. I would ask that your "resume" be an original review for the site, one that we can post as soon as you're accepted. If you are not, the review will not appear on the site and you may do with it as you please. Don't actually expect to be admitted as a new staff reviewer, but there's no harm in trying.