Hi everyone, occasional Neo-Geo.com poster and Retro Gamer editor Darran Jones here.
It would appear that the idea of the definitive has been missed somewhat, which is a shame as it's been running since issue 24.
Anyway, the point of the definitive is to cover every different game in the series. It's not a historical piece (that's what our complete history guides are for) it's designed to explain all the different games in a series (even if they share the same name, or are the same game) and how they differ from each other.
It's also an opinion piece. Stuart Campbell is one of the UK's best known videogame journalists and his work is always of a very high standard. He's also (as every games magazine reader in the UK knows) is very opinionated and he likes to put his opinions across to everyone. This is the reason why he is the only person in the magazine (myself included) who is allowed to use the first person when writing features.
Now for the record I love Metal Slug 3. I think it's the best game in the series for numerous reasons I could go into, but won't, and laughed my head off when I read Stuart's opinion because he couldn't have been more wrong about the game (in my opinion).
However.
He states throughout the article what he feels makes for a good Metal Slug game and he states again why he feels that Metal Slug 3 is the worst game. Taking this on board (whether you agree with it or not) by the time you get to Metal Slug and he's mentioning all the stuff in it which he's already described in previous game, you know he's going to love it. Is he right? Of course not (in my opinion of course).
Maybe it's a UK thing (and I don't mean to be patronising here) but Stuart's sarky style and the whole basis of what the definitive is, appears to have been lost in this particular instance. I once toyed with putting the standard (RG doesn't agree with everything STU says) at the end of each article, but assumed that readers would know that this is one individual talking and is not the collective thoughts of the magazine. Maybe we need to address this.
Now if this was a complete history of MS then some of your points could well be justified, but it isn't. Stuart is meticulous in his research and I trust him 110% with whatever he writes. He's been writing these articles now for a very long time, and no one has ever been able to recall a game he's missed or pointed out something that's factually incorrect about what he's missing.
If I didn't think his article was up to scratch then I wouldn't include it in the magazine. It's that simple.
You're getting Stuart's opinions and thoughts about the series confused with him actually stating them as facts, which he isn't.
If you can't point out things that are factually incorrect then great, you've got a solid argument, but at this moment in time in does very much come across like "this article is rubbish because it doesn't agree with what are generally accepted opinions" which is totally different. On the other hand, you're obviously entitled to your opinion and it's good to know that there are gamers out there who still have a hell of a lot of passion for their favourite games.
Peace Out. I'm off to play Metal Gear Ocelot.