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

Status
Not open for further replies.

lithy

hønefuld
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Posts
15,564
Indeed you do. My stance is, if you're a rude ignorant cunt you can go and fuck yourself. I apologise if that wasn't clear before.

I'm done here, as I can feel my IQ falling just by being near you.

Yeah, trying to get through everything you posted this morning has made my head hurt as well.
 

OMFG

The Portuguese Chop
Joined
Nov 20, 2007
Posts
4,701
I can't write an "editorial", since I'm not a member of staff. You guys really aren't great with this whole "meaning of words" thing, are you?

Then I do stand corrected on that. Thank you for the clarification.
 

Mike

Bead Banger
Joined
Aug 13, 2000
Posts
1,492
Oh, and by the way:



Don't tell me what I mean, you rude, ignorant, illiterate, arrogant, fucking cunt.

AWESOME! :eek:

That's one of the best quotes I've ever read on this website and I've been around since it started.

Well done.
 

Deuce

Death Before Dishonesty, Logic Above All,
Joined
Feb 13, 2002
Posts
7,454
Don't tell me what I mean, you rude, ignorant, illiterate, arrogant, fucking cunt.

You know, while I agree fully with your right to write whatever you want, there's really no need for this. If you want to pick nits, then fine... what you wrote wasn't an "editorial," but by all evidence, it's more an opinion piece than a fact-oriented writeup on the history of the series. If that's what you're comfortable with calling "Definitive," then that's your own lookout, but you're really doing little more than showing your ass at this point. An opinion piece cannot be "definitive," as it's not defining anything. Merriam-Webster gives the word to mean, "authoritative and apparently exhaustive." By the sounds of things, the article is neither.

And before you go deriding me for being defensive, I'll just state that I don't even like the Metal Slug series. Fine games for what they are, but just not a genre I find enjoyable.

Contrary to what so many parents tell their kids, there is indeed such a thing as a wrong opinion. The only worthwhile opinion is the carefully-considered one. And unless you spent a rather larger amount of time with each title than is evidenced in the article, then yours definitely does not meet that criteria.

And rather than getting your hackles raised and going on a name-calling spree, it would be more mature (if not more "professional") of you to simply ignore those who are calling you out. If you genuinely felt their opinions were of no importance, then their words wouldn't rile you so.
 

RevStu

Timid Neo Newbie
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Posts
0
And rather than getting your hackles raised and going on a name-calling spree, it would be more mature (if not more "professional") of you to simply ignore those who are calling you out.

Yeah, but less fun.

What you're doing, albeit more politely, is making the same mistake the OP did - speaking out of complete ignorance. I'm certain you haven't read the feature and have no idea whether it's an "opinion piece", or whether it's "exhaustive" or "authoratitive" or anything else, yet you're still throwing your two cents in.

For the record, it's both of those last two things, being primarily factual in content, but with some opinion thrown in to liven it up a bit. I played every single game through to completion several times, spending scores of hours with even miserable chores like MS3 and MS6 to make sure I got my facts right. And not one person has pointed out a single factual error anywhere in the piece, because there isn't one.

So yeah, I'm inclined to be contemptuous and insulting when some ignorant arsehole accuses me - INCREDIBLY rudely and offensively - of "shitting it out in a hurry" because THEY'RE too stupid to know what the Definitive series is about (despite claiming to read the magazine regularly), and then everyone else pats him on the back for it. As far as I'm concerned, that just shows you're all dicks, until proven otherwise.

The opinions aren't what's definitive about The Definitive, the facts are. The opinion is just a little colour on the side. If you've got an issue with any of the facts in the articles, feel free to discuss it. If you're a complete tool who doesn't know what he's talking about, it's generally better to keep your mouth shut, as the OP seems to have belatedly realised.
 

Late

Reichsf?rer-Finnland,
Joined
Nov 22, 2001
Posts
7,932
^the gist is, why do you make these articles about neo geo games when you know jack shit about them?
 

Duddyroar

Bashful Neophyte
Joined
Mar 22, 2003
Posts
18
^the gist is, why do you make these articles about neo geo games when you know jack shit about them?

If you knew anything about Stu then you'd realise just how stupid that comment is.
 

Sam Madeupname

Timid Neo Newbie
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Posts
0
Hello sweeties.

I realise that reason and sense on a forum are the pipedreams of the lunatic, but I like to take a little stab at it now and then.

The problem arises when someone's rudeness is more direct, or honest. Stuart's responses have upset or enraged people because he is quite clear about why and with whom he is cross. A direct, "I think you're a fucking shit-gargler" leaves no one confused, and at least one person insulted. And thus people recognise Stuart as a rude man.

However, I would like to contend that his rudeness is a sugar cube of delight in the festering, mouldy mug of tea that introduced this thread. The original poster wrote something that went beyond rudeness. It was libellous, offensive, and wholly inaccurate. As the editor of the magazine has since stated, and as those who are aware of Campbell's reputation will know, his writing is meticulous, the result of immense amounts of work. To call him lazy, incapable, immature, poor at research, sub-par, or any of the other slurs offered by the opening buffoon are not only without evidence, wholly unfair, and downright stupid, but also potentially damaging to someone's reputation. Fortunately Bobak's stream of bubbling nonsense is hardly likely to do any such harm, but clearly it was his intention.

Clearly if Campbell were the sort who could come in and calmly and politely point out the grotesque array of errors that poured down the screen like idiotic sludge in Bobak's flap, he would more effectively be heard, and those too slow to grasp the intricacies of communication (for instance, those unable to read what people wrote) would not so immediately leap to shriek at him. His approach could certainly be more productive.

But it is honest. Which is far more than can be said for the participation of others. And my contention is that this honesty should be treated with more respect than the insidious, deceptive, spite-fest that made up Bobak's post.

I realise this will never happen, since this is a forum, and as such the domain of the shrieking masses. But I still put the effort in to say my thoughts despite that.

Yours in persistent optimism,

Sam Madeupname
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Death Before Dishonesty, Logic Above All,
Joined
Feb 13, 2002
Posts
7,454
You do realize, though, there is a certain hypocrisy involved in you calling someone else arrogant or rude. And I say that, based solely on the posts you've made here. You've built yourself up verbally as an unimpeachable pillar of integrity in gaming journalism (two words which rarely, if ever, belong in the same sentence), and two paragraphs later, you're spewing profanity and talking down to everyone. It's not exactly convincing.

Believe me when I say, age is no indicator of maturity. You may be in your forties, but that doesn't make you an adult. In fact, you've only got a few years on me (fewer than I care to think about, in fact). But your behavior thus far on this forum gives off the impression that you are, for better or worse, a perfect fit here. You come off as an overaged child that never quite learned the lesson that not everyone is going to agree with you, and the fact that that's okay (an issue that many here seem to have). Regardless of how that may sound, it's not really intended as an insult.

Personally, I tend to think that something that has the temerity to refer to itself as "definitive" should be referential in nature, and not necessarily reverential in tone. Frankly, if negative feedback from the "ignorant" is going to upset you so, I'd suggest you avoid feedback of any kind, develop a more moderate writing style, or grow some thicker skin.
 

RevStu

Timid Neo Newbie
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Posts
0
What's the connection between integrity and being rude to morons? Try as I might I can't see how one impacts on the other.

there is a certain hypocrisy involved in you calling someone else arrogant or rude

You seem to be oddly under the apprehension that I don't think I'm arrogant or rude. Quite clearly I have been those things in this thread - the difference between Bobak and I is that at least I've got my facts right. The other difference is that everyone's up in arms at me for doing it, while simultaneously patting him on the back. I know who the hypocrites are here, and I'm not one of them. I notice you seem quite happy with his original post full of crude language and vile and insulting comments and insinuations.

You come off as an overaged child

I play videogames for a living, hello.
 
Last edited:

Mike

Bead Banger
Joined
Aug 13, 2000
Posts
1,492
Hello sweeties.

I realise that reason and sense on a forum are the pipedreams of the lunatic, but I like to take a little stab at it now and then.

The problem arises when someone's rudeness is more direct, or honest. Stuart's responses have upset or enraged people because he is quite clear about why and with whom he is cross. A direct, "I think you're a fucking shit-gargler" leaves no one confused, and at least one person insulted. And thus people recognise Stuart as a rude man.

However, I would like to contend that his rudeness is a sugar cube of delight in the festering, mouldy mug of tea that introduced this thread. The original poster wrote something that went beyond rudeness. It was libellous, offensive, and wholly inaccurate. As the editor of the magazine has since stated, and as those who are aware of Campbell's reputation will know, his writing is meticulous, the result of immense amounts of work. To call him lazy, incapable, immature, poor at research, sub-par, or any of the other slurs offered by the opening buffoon are not only without evidence, wholly unfair, and downright stupid, but also potentially damaging to someone's reputation. Fortunately Bobak's stream of bubbling nonsense is hardly likely to do any such harm, but clearly it was his intention.

Clearly if Campbell were the sort who could come in and calmly and politely point out the grotesque array of errors that poured down the screen like idiotic sludge in Bobak's flap, he would more effectively be heard, and those too slow to grasp the intricacies of communication (for instance, those unable to read what people wrote) would not so immediately leap to shriek at him. His approach could certainly be more productive.

But it is honest. Which is far more than can be said for the participation of others. And my contention is that this honesty should be treated with more respect than the insidious, deceptive, spite-fest that made up Bobak's post.

I realise this will never happen, since this is a forum, and as such the domain of the shrieking masses. But I still put the effort in to say my thoughts despite that.

Yours in persistent optimism,

Sam Madeupname

I like these guys. They're fucking funny.

Very well written, too.

You guys should post here more often. Seriously.

Good stuff.

I fully anticipate reading Bobak's counter - which I guarantee will be very difficult to beat.

Very entertaining day here.:smirk:
 

Deuce

Death Before Dishonesty, Logic Above All,
Joined
Feb 13, 2002
Posts
7,454
What's the connection between integrity and being rude to morons? Try as I might I can't see how one impacts on the other.

Well, most people aren't complete idiots in their day-to-day lives. But when emotions flare, pretty much all the circuit breakers for the parts of the brain that manage impulse control get their fuses blown. And on the internet, it's basically one grand storm of loss of impulse control, 24-7. You're no less guilty than they of perpetuating it.

My advice to you is, let it go. You're not going to agree with each other. It's a waste of time on all sides.
 

genjiglove

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
Joined
Mar 17, 2003
Posts
15,080
I would like to read Retro Gamer but I haven't won the lottery yet.

$126 bucks for a subscription? Get the fuck outta here. I got a years worth of Game Informer for 15 bucks nigga.
 

RevStu

Timid Neo Newbie
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Posts
0
Well, most people aren't complete idiots in their day-to-day lives. But when emotions flare, pretty much all the circuit breakers for the parts of the brain that manage impulse control get their fuses blown. And on the internet, it's basically one grand storm of loss of impulse control, 24-7. You're no less guilty than they of perpetuating it.

Sure. What does that have to do with integrity, though? What does my reaction to idiots moronically criticising my work have to do with whether the work itself has integrity or not?

My advice to you is, let it go.

Oh, I've said all I have to say on the original subject. You and I are discussing something else entirely.
 

Deuce

Death Before Dishonesty, Logic Above All,
Joined
Feb 13, 2002
Posts
7,454
Sure. What does that have to do with integrity, though? What does my reaction to idiots moronically criticising my work have to do with whether the work itself has integrity or not?

I was more specifically referring to the simple fact that you've been arrogant, rude and obnoxious, in the same (metaphorical) breath as describing yourself as being so far above those whom you deride for being arrogant, rude and obnoxious.

But more in reference to your question, I stand by my previous statement that if the piece describing itself as "definitive" is more a series of reviews than an unbiased, encyclopedic approach, then it lacks integrity... or is, at best, disingenuous. A good journalist is one that can present facts without allowing personal bias to creep into the piece (there are previous few "good journalists" in the world, obviously).

Many would contend that I'd make a poor choice to write a similar piece on the same series, what with being largely ambivalent about it. I'd argue that that very fact makes me a better choice, as I could be more impartial than a longtime fan who has developed certain loyalties to various installments. There are certain things I know about the series' history, such as MSX being released largely in response to fan reactions about the slowdown issues that plagued MS2. Whether you as a writer consider the game to be a cheap cash grab or not should not be part of the article.

The internet has skewed most folks' outlook on what is and isn't "acceptable" in writing of any kind. Call me old-fashioned, but I still tend to stick by the old standards.
 

RevStu

Timid Neo Newbie
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Posts
0
I was more specifically referring to the simple fact that you've been arrogant, rude and obnoxious, in the same (metaphorical) breath as describing yourself as being so far above those whom you deride for being arrogant, rude and obnoxious.

I didn't do any such thing, though. I've freely admitted being rude and obnoxious all the way through. The difference is that I'm not also stupid and wrong.

A good journalist is one that can present facts without allowing personal bias to creep into the piece

Anyone CAN do that, yes. It's very easy indeed. It's also frequently very dull, though, so a good journalist can also pep something up to make it more entertaining to read, because if a magazine isn't entertaining then people generally don't buy it.

Whether you as a writer consider the game to be a cheap cash grab or not should not be part of the article.

Says you. But The Definitives (all written by me, all to the same template) are one of the most popular features on RG, as you can easily verify for yourself by checking the poll that's currently running on the mag website. If you like reading dull stuff, there are plenty of places to find it.

Oh, and I've been writing professionally since 1990, long before there was a widespread internet, and my style hasn't changed. Since you evidently haven't read much if any of my work, I'd thank you not to make rude sweeping generalisations about it based on ignorance, whether yours or someone else's.
 

lithy

hønefuld
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Posts
15,564
But more in reference to your question, I stand by my previous statement that if the piece describing itself as "definitive" is more a series of reviews than an unbiased, encyclopedic approach, then it lacks integrity... or is, at best, disingenuous. A good journalist is one that can present facts without allowing personal bias to creep into the piece (there are previous few "good journalists" in the world, obviously).

I think this appears to be Bobak's main complaint with the article. I will set aside my own judgments since I have not read the actual article (I'd like to), but I think it is fair to say that if you (quoting Deuce but referring to the author now) had Bobak type up this whole post and someone else claim they began to transcribe the entire thing because of how poorly they thought of it, then maybe some time to respond to the criticisms is warranted.

Basically, Bobak makes several mentions that essentially boil down to the fact that you give the games no context. I am no big fan 3 so you're not souring me there, but maybe you could have elaborated on how all of the games in the year 2000 were something of a big "Going out of Business" show. Or like Bobak mentions, that 4 was a sloppily rushed game just mashing up already existing bits from previous games because of the state of the new SNKP just trying to suck a few dollars out of their newfound licenses.

I have not read this "Definitive" series, but it would seem to me that despite not intended to be a dry history of the series, it would do well to include some of the history as each game is released.

Just my opinion of course, one that you don't appear willing to receive.
 

RevStu

Timid Neo Newbie
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Posts
0
I have not read this "Definitive" series, but it would seem to me that despite not intended to be a dry history of the series, it would do well to include some of the history as each game is released.

It does do that. The MS4 entry, for example, does discuss SNK having been taken over and Playmore being responsible for the subsequent titles. Bobak's post is quite stupendously ignorant and wrong in almost every factual sense, so I wouldn't go taking it as a reliable source of anything if I were you.
 

Comrade Porn King Mikhail

TЗh ЯussiaИs Дre CФm
Joined
Oct 11, 2000
Posts
3,486
I'd pay to see zer0hue show up and post one of this retrospectives here! :lol:

Can someone just scan and post up the article here? I can't find the mag at B&N.

Sincerely,

Mikhail
 

lithy

hønefuld
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Posts
15,564
It does do that. The MS4 entry, for example, does discuss SNK having been taken over and Playmore being responsible for the subsequent titles. Bobak's post is quite stupendously ignorant and wrong in almost every factual sense, so I wouldn't go taking it as a reliable source of anything if I were you.

So then wouldn't a quick quote from your article be a much simpler reply to this?

His opinion linger into the section on Metal Slug 4, where he states --in what was starting to come close to a polemic-- "it was slightly less bitterly unfair than MS3, as well as being shorter. (And smaller generally, with less branching and therefore less replay value, which would normally be a bad thing but isn't when you're using something as horrible as Metal Slug 3 for your design foundation.)" He theorizes that MS4 was the most criticized in the series because "when players buy something that got good reviews but turns out to be a bad game, they take their frustrations out on the next one in the series - but we don't really have the room to go into it." Oh yeah, sure, that must be why the game was inferior --I'm so happy he spent space in the brief section to outline his personal theories rather than spend time focusing on how the state of SNK/Playmore caused the rush job. He then laments the lack of extras in the ports, since those are likely the only versions he was playing.

You know, instead of just calling him a fuckwit repeatedly like a one trick pony.
 

Will Graham

Bashful Neophyte
Joined
May 19, 2007
Posts
11
Well read the article over a month ago, chose not to say anything but after this....

My problem with the article is that aside from MS1 and MS7, Stu doesn't seem to like the franchise. This was easily the most negative of the "Definitive" articles.
The whole thing came off as fanboy bashing rather than a proper critical look at it.

Anyway I hope this does not convince people to not buy Retro Gamer as it is by far the best for retro coverage and worth 10 times more than Game Informer.
 

Geddon_jt

Creator of the Master List,
20 Year Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Posts
1,305
Indeed you have. Bobak isn't the first total fuckwit to be completely ignorant of what the purpose of The Definitive is.

I have all but about a dozen issues of Retro Gamer and that was the first article I ever read where I was truly taken aback by the lack of substance and perspective, regardless of whatever your intentions might have been. I'm sure I have read all of your "The Definitive" pieces as well over the years.

I'm pretty shocked by your behavior on here. You have a foul mouth and a foul temper. It's obvious you are highly bothered by criticism, especially when it comes from people who know a lot more about these games than you do, even after your "week-long" marathon.

There is definitely one thing Bobak got right: your article fucking sucked, regardless of how you want to spin the semantics.
 
Last edited:

RevStu

Timid Neo Newbie
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Posts
0
So then wouldn't a quick quote from your article be a much simpler reply to this?

You know, instead of just calling him a fuckwit repeatedly like a one trick pony.

I didn't actually bother answering that specific criticism at all, far less by calling him a fuckwit. Since by then it had long been established that Bobak doesn't have the first clue what The Definitive is for, there seemed little point in repeating the explanation over and over and over and over.

Nobody gives a shit WHY Metal Slug 4 was the game it was. (Though that's still a far better game than MS3.) What matters is how good it is to play, so in a feature with limited space that's what I concentrate on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top