Darran, in his own words
Okay, I put off responding to an earlier comment by Darran since I assumed Rot had ended everything. But since Darran is apparently still scanning this thread, I thought I'd reply to this unresolved comment to me:
Plus I never said what you've stated, but you're free to interpret my silence here any way you choose.
So what did I say he said?
All right, let's take a look at what Darran said in this thread, and see if it matches:
-- In a moment where I assume he didn't actually read the original post, Darran (lead editor of RG) starts repeating Stuart Campbell's argument that a lack of errors removes any accusations of poor writing, omissions, etc... (which has no logical basis). He then basically expresses: "Oh, what can I do? Its not my problem. So I won't do anything." I'm sure I'm not the only one who's studied leadership and management in school; and one aspect of a good leader is the willingness take whatever responsibility --real or perceived-- they can muster to control damage to their organization; not dismissing it on a technicality.
Your original post in this thread, dismissive as it was, addressed the poor writing in the article by noting:
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.
Where did I say that I assumed this was meant as a dry, pure-fact/no-opinion article? Answer: nowhere --only Stuart, in his unprofessional hysterics, said something like that because he misinterpreted by accusations that he put out terrible work product with the conclusion that I meant that only a serious, dry article would work. Considering I've regularly complimented RG on this site, I'm obviously aware of the light hearted, humorous tone that's present throughout (and occasional errors in each issue). The problem with the Metal Slug piece is it was terrible by the standards of what we came to appreciate in RG.
I said it was poorly written, and you mention several times above that, unless anyone can point out errors, then this is just a good article otherwise you would have never published it.
So you obviously didn't pay much attention to my actual criticism, it seems you came in only to defend your own decision for printing the article.
Now you do come to some comment on Mr. Campbell's actions:
I can only apologise for any bad language he has used.
But you never actually do it --and your comment isn't entirely accurate as a manager can obviously be much more politically astute and note that "the actions and comments of Stuart Campbell on this forum do not reflect the opinion of the editors and staff of Retro Gamer
." Nope, you just say you could
apologize for bad language.
But let's go to the point where you repeat your misinterpretation of my comments (something you deny above):
I can't believe that this thread is now ten pages long and STILL no one has pointed out the many factual accuracies that Bobak has claimed in his original post. Can someone who has actually read the article and is not blindly responding to a fellow, long established forum member please list them for me, as I'd love to know what they are.
After all this time, the original poster still seems to have confused an opinion seen within the magazine as stated fact.
Show me the money as Jerry Maguire would say. Better than that, show me actual factual errors, because at the moment this is still reading like "I will slander someone because they don't agree that Metal Slug 3 is the best game in the series."
So, Darran, tell me how you can write the above then disagree with my comment that you started "repeating Stuart Campbell's argument that a lack of errors removes any accusations of poor writing, omissions, etc... (which has no logical basis)." You can't.
Also, please Darran: don't misuse legal words like "slander". I can state all of my comments on the poorly written hack job by Mr. Campbell without any fear of "slander", because they are true. Besides, as a written review, the issue would've been "libel", not "slander" if I had somehow committed some form of defamation.
But, tick-tock, you didn't stop:
So we're getting to the end of yet another page and STILL no one has produced any proof of any factual errors within the article in question.
Why is everyone bashing Retro Gamer's integretity for poorly written articles when they've not read the article in question and are instead basing their opinions on a lengthy post that STILL doesn't make any mention of a single factual mistake that's been made within the article he's clearly so upset about.
Why are you all blindly following someone who, thanks to his first post, clearly doesn't know what he's talking about? (and by that I don't mean the metal slug franchise, but What Retro Gamer's Definitive Series is). It just doesn't make any sense.
As for posting scans I'd imagine that Imagine Publishing would demand they're taking down before you can say "but they're mummies, not zombies."
I added the emphasis to point out this is the exact same argument your previous post, based on the idea first put forth by Mr. Campbell, that "a lack of errors removes any accusations of poor writing". You assert you never said such a thing. Well, there you are again.
I'd like you to clearly state what you think about calling the enemies in Metal Slug 2 zombies.
Why is that so important to you? Surely we should be discussing the factual errors within the article? After all that's how this all started up.
If you read my first comment, you'd actually notice that I said the whole zombie/mummy things was "a forgivable error" and dropped it. Then you go into the "factual errors" that I supposedly started this with --only the thing is, my point was it was a poorly written article that stood out against the normal work in RG.
The point is everything in the article he insists is factually incorrect, is not actually factually incorrect, but because he's a respected member of this forum, you'll happily believe him anyway.
He's confused the writer's opinions on the series as being a factual representation of Metal Slug's history and because he doesn't agree with the writer's opinion's he has gotten angry - something I knew would happen as soon as I fell off my chair laughing about the Metal Slug 3 entry when I first read it - which of course is completely missing the point.
How many things did I say were factually incorrect, Darran? Why did I use the words "mess", "rushed", "unpolished", "rush job", etc. The only thing I apparently didn't understand perfectly was the poorly used [-Ed] joke (a convention I am familiar with) --and the reason it didn't quite work was because the joke was poorly done. The rest of my comments were all about how poor article quality. But no, you state that "everything in the article he insists is factually incorrect, is not actually factually incorrect". As I said in the comment you deny: "In a moment where I assume he didn't actually read the original post, Darran starts repeating Stuart Campbell's argument that a lack of errors removes any accusations of poor writing, omissions, etc..."
A factual error is this game has 12 levels when it has 6. A factual error is Marco made his debut in Metal Slug 5.
Deciding whether a creature that exhibits the traits of several types of different undead as exhibited in a whole selection of cinematic, fantasy books and mythology (I play D&D so technically I don't consider them either to be fully zombies or mummies) is something different entirely. Still that's not going to stop someone from having the opinion that it is a factual error, which sort of brings up back around to the beginning of this whole thread.
Good lord, the irony of this post is others even pointed out such a level mistake in the article. But the second paragraph is more of the same: you throw this mummy/zombie debate back to the first post, which is actually about poor writing. Y'know, I'd like to take this second to comment that a good
writer might have put something about mummies in the write-up for 2, then allowed for a comment like "3 just took the lame mummies from 2 and swapped them with zombies." I think that basically carries the same idea that Mr. Campbell had about the "problems" with 2/X/3, but is --I dunno-- written more clearly and, frankly, better than this piece in toto.
Later, you come back to Mr. Campbell:
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.
To go back to how I characterized your reaction, taking into account your above two comments: "He then basically expresses: "Oh, what can I do? Its not my problem. So I won't do anything." I'm sure I'm not the only one who's studied leadership and management in school; and one aspect of a good leader is the willingness take whatever responsibility --real or perceived-- they can muster to control damage to their organization; not dismissing it on a technicality."
So how is me answering questions that are being asked hurting the magazine's reputation? Anyway I'm off to play Demon's Souls.
Gee, I wonder:
As for a financial stake. Do you really think upsetting 4 (I think it four, it might be more, but I could be wrong) people on a forum is going to crush world wide sales of Retro Gamer?
This was in reply to lithy's comment "We also don't have a financial stake in anything we post as well." The funny thing is, you soon go on to backpedal:
Um you've not read my post have you?
Of course I don't want to lose readers. Hell I hate to even lose one reader. I love my readers, they secure the future of the magazine and in these ridiculously uncertain times that's a critical thing as you've already pointed out. It's a pity if certain readers are going to stop buying the magazine because they don't like the way Stuart has conducted himself, but that's totally out of my control. I can't force you to buy the magazine.
As someone has already pointed out, regardless of how they feel about the author of an article and how they conduct themselves that isn't going to stop them from reading the mag.
I asked Lithy "Do you really think upsetting 4 (I think it four, it might be more, but I could be wrong) people on a forum is going to crush world wide sales of Retro Gamer?"
And yet somehow you're attributing a question I asked him to my own personal opinion about how I feel.
I'm going to be honest, I don't think anyone would interpret your words in any other way than how they sounded --and the need to write several paragraphs to defend it only shows how well-conveyed the first message was.
Well I know that I don't like the way Amy Winehouse conducts herself in public, but that won't stop me from listening to Back to Black. That's me though.
And yet the studio who publishes Winehouse's music would be quick to state that her words and actions do not reflect them --the logical parallel to your relationship to Mr. Campbell.
Let's bring out the next few comments:
So let me get this straight, you want me to publically tell Stuart off for his behaviour on a public forum is that right? Is that how people you know are usually told off then?
To repeat: "He then basically expresses: "Oh, what can I do? Its not my problem. So I won't do anything." I'm sure I'm not the only one who's studied leadership and management in school; and one aspect of a good leader is the willingness take whatever responsibility --real or perceived-- they can muster to control damage to their organization; not dismissing it on a technicality."
Your next post asks for a little more parsing:
Didn't I always say that I'm not going to address Stuart's behaviour on a public forum? That's just not professional is it.
Actually it is. Companies find themselves having to do it all the time. Its called PR.
Also, I'm pretty sure I made a public apology about his language very early on in the thread (page two I think), but it was conveniently ignored.
Really? Where? All you said was "I can only apologise for any bad language he has used." --and you never did.
Oh and as for the readership thing I never said I couldn't care about losing readers, but as you've already made your mind up about me (despite all the coverage I've given this site in the past) I guess it doesn't really matter now does it.*
As I said in my first post, I had nothing but goodwill towards the magazine. While Mr. Campbell had a hissy-fit because he's unprofessional... You backed yourself into that corner.
To save me trawling through the last 13 odd pages can I still have that list of PROPER factual errors please and not anything relating to what the individual in question felt should have been in the article?
Yet again, you state only the presence of factual errors equals poor writing.
Something you deny you said in your very next post (the one at the top of this thread), which asked for this more thorough response.
I look forward to hearing back, if you're still interested. How did I misinterpret what you said again?