Twinkle Star
Benimaru's Hairdresser
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2004
- Posts
- 796
WOAH!!
i'm 100% latino and i never tried to act black or white in my life. Thank you, I'm trying to become a Radiologist.
He was as white as ivory snow in those pics though, and he stood out like a sore thumb, which may actually support his claim of a professional relationship. Why else would a bunch of gangstas hang out with a gangly video-game playing cracker nerd.
Holla.
I really don't give a rat's ass about flaming or hysterics or anything Internet-drama related anymore, but I am a big fan of truth and reality, and the reality of this situation is that aegreatone is a white kid.
For the newbies...
A few years back he posted some pics of himself with some semi-famous-at-the-time southern US rappers. He was claiming he was their producer or manager or roadie or something. The pics were real, and who knows, he may have actually been professionally involved with these people.
He was as white as ivory snow in those pics though, and he stood out like a sore thumb, which may actually support his claim of a professional relationship. Why else would a bunch of gangstas hang out with a gangly video-game playing cracker nerd.
He tried to deny that that was him in the pics a short while later, after everyone started ripping on him for being a wigger. Which makes me really believe it was him in the first place. If I were going to lie about hanging out with the gangstas, I'd claim I was one of the brothas, and not the honky.
Doesn't really matter anyway, cause it looks like the guy gotz banned yo. Ha ha ha. Tora-Kouhi-lite smack-posting mothafucka.
Holla.
i'm 100% latino and i never tried to act black or white in my life. Thank you, I'm trying to become a Radiologist.
It's threads like this which make me thankful I'm only a very minor geek.
Also, Metal Slug is overrated and Retro Gamer is awesome.
Damn but that's a mass of humanity
Apoligize and we are still okay,don't apologize and
Tbh I'm just talking out of my ass, I only own the original so am in no position to comment
Wow is this still going?So I finally found a BN that had the mag in it (had to drive all the way to fucking Roseville) and read the "article"...what a fucking crock of shit. Bobak was too kind.
I'm not going to regurgitate what he posted, but HOLY FUCK Stewie didn't research a goddamn thing other than hitting up Wikipedia/GameFAQs and playing Anthology. I love how his writeup of MS5 is less than 5 sentances long; his concluding sentance goes something like "other than that, it's business as usual, so let's move along shall we?" Classic bullshit way to get out of writing something you failed to research in time. I was in high school, and I remember pulling that shit out when the paper was due and I didn't have the energy to finish my last bullet point.
Also, I love how he rags on MS3's difficulty, then chides people for doing the same thing to MS Advance.
Plus, the fucker didn't even include all of the ports, as MS3 XBLA is missing, as are all of the WiiWare Metal Slugs (all of which were available when he wrote the article). All of the info for the original arcade versions of the games are just ripped from a wiki so he has more time to elaborate on the Playstation versions.
It's also funny how heavily they relied on formatting: each page had about two paragraphs of info tops, and had the other 80% of the page filled out with random sprites and screenshots. There was maybe, MAYBE a page's worth of words in the entire spread, which might actually be a good thing considering Stewie's horrible writing style.
I also love how the fucker got out of reviewing the mobile versions by whining "there's too many" and "teh keypad is bad for shooters!!1!".
In summary: by reading the actual article and judging for myself, I think it's actually worse than what people have been pointing out here. It's apparent that Stewie just got a couple of Playstation ports, the handheld versions and Anthology for his "research", and spent so much time fucking around with useless extras that he forgot to write about the actual fucking games.
And yes, he does state that Metal Slug has only 5 levels. FACTUAL ERROR #1 CONFIRMED
Wow is this still going?
And again you've still missed the point of what the definitive is about It's to mark significant additions and changes to the gameplay, not to simply list every port that's ever been released. Still good try though.
Wow is this still going?
And again you've still missed the point of what the definitive is about It's to mark significant additions and changes to the gameplay, not to simply list every port that's ever been released. Still good try though.
Actually, you know what sounds retarded...Wow is this still going?
And again you've still missed the point of what the definitive is about It's to mark significant additions and changes to the gameplay, not to simply list every port that's ever been released. Still good try though.
Plus I never said what you've stated, but you're free to interpret my silence here any way you choose.
-- 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.
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.
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.I can only apologise for any bad language he has used.
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 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."
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.I'd like you to clearly state what you think about calling the enemies in Metal Slug 2 zombies.
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.
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.
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.
So how is me answering questions that are being asked hurting the magazine's reputation? Anyway I'm off to play Demon's Souls.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.*
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?