Retro Gamer magazine's terrible Metal Slug feature --reviewed!

[Sam Madeupname]

There is the full quote for reference. I never suggested the research was poor. I suggested that with the way he came in to defend himself, I have few other opinions to form. He comes off as stubborn and incapable of forming a competent defense on his own behalf.

"People have suggested and I would tend to agree with that he appears to have done a poor job of research for this piece"

Oh come on now, you're better than that. You suggested the research was poor. You can say that you've changed your mind, or that you were wrong when you wrote those words, but you can't deny you wrote them - that's just deranged. It doesn't matter that you then went on to say that Stu's behaviour here is what led you to conclude that he did a poor job of research, you still said he appears to have done a poor job of research!

And why am I here? This is the forum I spend 99% of my time on. I didn't migrate to this thread from elsewhere on the internet to stir shit up, I'm just responding to the mounds of drivel he has managed to drool out in the last 24 hours.

I didn't ask why you're here. I couldn't care less why you're here if I removed my brain with an ice cream scoop.

As for why I have to ask 400 times? You may have to ask Stu why he is so keen to avoid simple questions until they are posed to him 400 times.

Why did you say "As for why" when you then didn't go on to say why? Stu hasn't avoided the question, you wombat. No, he doesn't care if the manual says it's a mummy. He said that! He said that whatever it's called, in order for it to move about and transmit its undead disorder, it must be a zombie, whether it's a mummy or not. You must get awfully scared in museums. "Eeek! A mummy! We're all done for!"

But again you avoided saying why! Why do you care so much? I assume that it's not that you're the world's biggest mummy fan, and nothing makes you more angry than when people call them zombies. So I'm left to conclude you just so desperately want to have proven what you consider to be a factual error, no matter how mind-bogglingly tiny and unimportant. And I'm fascinated to know why. You've said you haven't read the article, don't care about Bobak, and aren't trying to score points. So why?! WHY?! Do you want to hold one over Retro Gamer? Do you think it will prove Stu wrong in everything else in the article? Just give me something!

 

[Frankly]

I'm elitist AND scum? Man, this thread's getting me all confused.

Do you imagine, perhaps, that after 20 years in the business editors don't know perfectly well how I conduct myself on forums or anywhere else? Because if you do imagine that, you're even more stupid than you appear, which is very stupid indeed. Still, feel free to drop them a line if it'll make you feel better.

He's right, they do all know what he's like.

Which is why he gets hardly any work these days.

Years of this kind of babyish behaviour has almost fucked him out of a living and brought him scarily close to the brink of bankruptcy. And yet it's always everyone else who's at fault.

Funny that.

 

[Rade K]

Does anyone realize that this thread would be half as long without the idiotic 'zombie' debates?

 

[RevStu]

I like how I gave you the entire quote and you proceeded to shorten it as well. If you would continue to read, the meaning of the statement is that when you come into a thread to challenge assertions that your writing was poorly researched by starting a total shitstorm of name calling, who am I likely to believe?

Well, an intelligent person wouldn't let it affect their judgement either way, but what's that got to do with you, right? Let's knuckle this down:

1. You haven't read the feature in question.

2. Despite that, you feel able to state that you agree it's poorly-researched, just because I called someone names.

You're funny.

Still waiting for the name of that film, or for your definitions of what a zombie and a mummy are.

Reckon we'll be waiting quite a while.

 

[strider]

I would agree with you if the manual called them frogs or hamburgers. But let's just assume it calls them mummies. A totally reasonable name. Is calling them zombies a factual error?

Well surely that depends on whether the person who wrote the original manual felt that the creatures depicted within the game had the requistes of the creature they wrote about in the manual. Right?

As I've already started they're neither zombies or mummies technically. Not that you can really get technical about something which isn't real, but anyway, I digress.

 

[Steve]

Repost for Darran Jones

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 37 (16 members and 21 guests)
Steve, A-Train, Battlesmurf, DARK ANDY, Frankly, gargoyle7, Gwyrgyn Blood, Jedah Doma, lithy, Praise the Lard, Rade+, RevStu, Sam Madeupname, strider, td741, Vectorman0

Holy crap. Might be a new record.

Moving on. Reposting this, since Darran might have missed the original post in the rapid fire page changes, and understandably so:

Hi everyone, occasional Neo-Geo.com poster and Retro Gamer editor Darran Jones here.

Despite whoever may be more "right" or "wrong" (or both), as editor of Retro Gamer magazine, Darran, I'm just curious what your thoughts are to the way Stuart has conducted himself here? Some have called his behavior here unprofessional, Stu claims otherwise. He said he doesn't represent the magazine here, while some (myself included) believe there's still a code of professional honor you should uphold. Quite frankly, his behavior has been amazing, and I don't mean "amazing" in a positive light, either. Since you're the editor of the magazine, I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this general subject.

 

[genjiglove]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 39 (17 members and 22 guests)
genjiglove, A-Train, Battlesmurf, DARK ANDY, Frankly, gargoyle7, Gwyrgyn Blood, Jedah Doma, KanYozakura, lithy, Praise the Lard, Rade+, RevStu, Sam Madeupname, Steve, td741, Vectorman0

Wow.

 

[Metal Slugnuts]

I can undestand Stuart not wanting to post the article, but come on Darran, post the article and let us judge for ourselves. You joining in on the whole zombie/mummy pissing match doesn't help the magazine's image at all.

 

[Frankly]

All Darran's bothered about is getting page loads of copy for peanuts from a monkey.

A few swears on the internet won't have him losing sleep at night.

 

[RevStu]

All Darran's bothered about is getting page loads of copy for peanuts from a monkey.

A few swears on the internet won't have him losing sleep at night.

Woo! Now we've got some PROPER hate! Is that you, Big Gus? Found a new job yet?

 

[strider]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 37 (16 members and 21 guests)
Steve, A-Train, Battlesmurf, DARK ANDY, Frankly, gargoyle7, Gwyrgyn Blood, Jedah Doma, lithy, Praise the Lard, Rade+, RevStu, Sam Madeupname, strider, td741, Vectorman0

Holy crap. Might be a new record.

Moving on. Reposting this, since Darran might have missed the original post in the rapid fire page changes, and understandably so:





Despite whoever may be more "right" or "wrong" (or both), as editor of Retro Gamer magazine, Darran, I'm just curious what your thoughts are to the way Stuart has conducted himself here? Some have called his behavior here unprofessional, Stu claims otherwise. He said he doesn't represent the magazine here, while some (myself included) believe there's still a code of professional honor you should uphold. Quite frankly, his behavior has been amazing, and I don't mean "amazing" in a positive light, either. Since you're the editor of the magazine, I'm wondering what your thoughts are on this general subject.

Oh I didn't miss it.

 

[kazuo]

No, Stu is a freelancer. Like I am also. RG has (to my knowledge) currently two permanent members of staff assigned to it, and Darran is one of them; the rest of the content is written by us hired hacks.

Ah. I stand corrected. I had the impression some pages back that he was a staff writer.

Carry on, then.

(He's still quite the douchecanoe, however, and not because of his article)

 

[Frankly]

Woo! Now we've got some PROPER hate! Is that you, Big Gus? Found a new job yet?

That I could be any one of a multitude of people is probably the scariest thing about me

 

[strider]

I can undestand Stuart not wanting to post the article, but come on Darran, post the article and let us judge for ourselves. You joining in on the whole zombie/mummy pissing match doesn't help the magazine's image at all.

So how is me answering questions that are being asked hurting the magazine's reputation? Anyway I'm off to play Demon's Souls.

 

[RevStu]

That I could be any one of a multitude of people is probably the scariest thing about me

LOL. The only thing scary about you is that you're allowed near electricity.

 

[lithy]

You're welcome Rade.

Well surely that depends on whether the person who wrote the original manual felt that the creatures depicted within the game had the requistes of the creature they wrote about in the manual. Right?

Damn, the second roundabout answer in a row. Alright let's say your neighbor Steve wrote the manual, called them mummies, you could even phone him up and have him explain to you his definition of mummy and that he was of sound mind and competant writing ability. Is it a factual error to call them zombies?

As I've already started they're neither zombies or mummies technically. Not that you can really get technical about something which isn't real, but anyway, I digress.

Better alert the philsophers!

Kan, shut the fuck up about getting the article scanned.

 

[RevStu]

Damn, the second roundabout answer in a row.

Look who's talking. Definitions of zombie and mummy, please.

 

[Praise the Lard]

Honestly this thread just gets more absurd as it goes on. Debating Zombies/Mummies is retarded? Yes does refers to Mummies as Zombies in the article (I'm one of the few who has actually read the damn thing), but who gives a damn? This is no longer about the article, but rather what a complete and utter douche bag Stuart is. He seems to have calmed down a bit today, perhaps he realized yesterday's antics wasn't the best of choices.

Too bad it doesn't matter at this point. When anyone takes up even the smallest beef with Retro Gamer magazine, whether it's justified or not, poof here comes a link to Stuart's shit storm on NG.com. See how competent the writers of RG are? lol

Stuart, if you are friends with anyone related to the magazine that is dependent on the income they receive from it then you should be fucking ashamed. Seriously.

Read that again: Fucking ashamed.

 

[RevStu]

Honestly this thread just gets more absurd as it goes on. Debating Zombies/Mummies is retarded? Yes does refers to Mummies as Zombies in the article (I'm one of the few who has actually read the damn thing), but who gives a damn? This is no longer about the article, but rather what a complete and utter douche bag Stuart is. He seems to have calmed down a bit today, perhaps he realized yesterday's antics wasn't the best of choices.

Fuck off and die in a fucking chemical fire, you fucking cunt.

Better?

 

[lithy]

Look who's talking. Definitions of zombie and mummy, please.

Mummy: n -- A being that has been mummified in any of several ways predominantly known from Ancient Egypt where the organs were removed and the body drained of fluids before being soaked in oils and wrapped in bandages to preserve the body. In horror films, mummies often appear as reanimated beings.

Zombie: n -- A recently undead person, the origins of which are mostly from the Caribbean and Voodoo. In horror films, zombies often appear as unthinking corpses that seek to eat/turn the living, usually a bite from a zombie turns that person into a zombie but variation can be found.

 

[lithy]

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 31 (12 members and 19 guests) chrisr

Haha, I hope he takes my side!

 

[RevStu]

Mummy: n -- A being that has been mummified in any of several ways predominantly known from Ancient Egypt where the organs were removed and the body drained of fluids before being soaked in oils and wrapped in bandages to preserve the body. In horror films, mummies often appear as reanimated beings.

Zombie: n -- A recently undead person, the origins of which are mostly from the Caribbean and Voodoo. In horror films, zombies often appear as unthinking corpses that seek to eat/turn the living, usually a bite from a zombie turns that person into a zombie but variation can be found.

In other words, what we have - as Jibbajaba said several pages ago - are enemies to which BOTH of the above descriptions apply, ie they're both zombies and mummies. Their sole distinct gameplay function is to turn the player into one of them (making him slow and vulnerable), which you yourself have defined above as a trait ONLY exhibited by zombies. (You don't, in fact, identify any character traits of mummies at all.) In other words, they're primarily zombies.

Goodness me, did you REALLY just walk right into that when it's been signposted for about five pages?

 

[Mike Bevan]

Honestly this thread just gets more absurd as it goes on. Debating Zombies/Mummies is retarded...

Not it's not. It's one of the bestest things I've ever read on teh internets. Period.

 

[lithy]

In other words, what we have - as Jibbajaba said several pages ago - are enemies to which BOTH of the above descriptions apply, ie they're both zombies and mummies. Their sole distinct gameplay function is to turn the player into one of them (making him slow and vulnerable), which you yourself have defined above as a trait ONLY exhibited by zombies. (You don't, in fact, identify any character traits of mummies at all.) In other words, they're primarily zombies.

Goodness me, did you REALLY just walk right into that when it's been signposted for about five pages?

No because as with any game you have to take it within context of the game. Like I said earlier rectangle is not always the best choice of words when you're looking at a square.

If I asked you to define plumber would you get Mario out of that?

In the games, the mummies turn you into mummies, so do the zombies, and they are distinct in their appearance.

If I took a poll and asked what the two were what sort of answers do you think I would get?

You're just too dense to admit a minor mistake, again just like the "affected spellings" bit. In print, a typo is a typo, an omission is an omission, and an error no matter how small is an error.

I'm not making judgments about the rest of your piece, no matter what you would like to project onto me. I'm just curious why it is so hard for you to say that they are mummies. Maybe you really believe what you're typing.

 

[Sam Madeupname]

Oh lithy, I'm so disappointed. You really could just tell everyone why you're so obsessively invested in your mummy manual manifesto.

You've had the editor of RG tell you the question is so boring and meaningless he can't even be bothered to answer it again, after repeatedly telling you he didn't consider it to be a factual error. You kept asking him to, in increasingly mad ways. And I've so rudely demanded you explain, and like some sort of oik you haven't.

I'm very worried about you if you don't share. I think in a matter of only a few years you'll be stumbling around back streets, a bottle of meths in one hand, a ragged copy of Retro Gamer in the other, screaming "HE WOULDN'T SAY IF MUMMIES WAS IN THE MANUAL! HE CALLED THEM ZOMBIES!" at anyone who might walk past.

Of course, any moment now you might declare you never mentioned mummies or zombies at all - you're a maverick like that.