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

[RevStu]

They are mummies and I'm just not sure why you can't wrap your head around that.

I concede that they are indeed bandage wrapped zombies

Make your mind up, dear.

 

[lithy]

Make your mind up, dear.

It was sarcasm you daft twit.

 

[Sam Madeupname]

Gosh, it's difficult to admit it, but I've had no choice but to change my mind. How could I not under the weight of intellect put forth by everyone involved in this thread?

I realise now it's definitely true that because a man did some swears, he can't know anything about old games. It sounds incongruous at first, possibly even downright moronic, but I'm going to prove this with an experiment:

I am quite knowledgeable about the early text parser adventures from Sierra in the early 90s.

SHIT COCKS BUM FARTS FUCK NIPPLE CUNTPLOPS

Sierra? Didn't they publish Half-Life? I like colours.​

It's enough to convince me.

I'm also now completely turned around about the professional thing. Again it seemed such a mind-wobblingly stupid position to take, but then I carried out my own research, speaking to a friendly fireman.

Me: Hello Mr Fireman, does your job mean you are considered to be a "professional"?
Mr Fireman: Why hello Sam. Yes it does.
Me: I dare you to say some swears.
Mr Fireman: As a fireman, and thus someone who has gone through complex hazing rituals, I am unable to back down from a dare. "Shitting fucksticks, dicks in a ditch!"
Mr Chief Fireman: That was not professional! All the fires you've ever put out have burst back into flame! You're fired!​

Deary me. What a to-do.

So I'm here to say I'm sorry for my previous idiotic arguments to the contrary. I've sure learned a thing or two from the Neo Geo Brain Trust, and no mistake.

Yours graciously.

 

[lithy]

It's like they memorized a dictionary but the only thing they could learn in the art of debate were logical fallacies!

 

[RevStu]

It was sarcasm you daft twit.

No WAY! Really? Oh man!

(I've never heard of a mummy in any form of culture anywhere ever that had the power to instantly turn someone else into a mummy. You know what mythical creatures that's a core characteristic of, though? Zombies. I think you'll find that's conclusive. Honestly, you're such an idiot - all a zombie has to do to get past you is put on a simple disguise. God help your family when the Zombie Apocalypse arrives, that's all I can say.)

 

[Sam Madeupname]

It's like they memorized a dictionary but the only thing they could learn in the art of debate were logical fallacies!

im sory lithy. i not do dem word finks proper no more cos it make u all fritened.

mayb if u not scared of da wrds u rply 2 sumfink wot ppl sed.

 

[lithy]

(I've never heard of a mummy in any form of culture anywhere ever that had the power to instantly turn someone else into a mummy. You know what mythical creatures that's a core characteristic of, though? Zombies. I think you'll find that's conclusive. Honestly, you're such an idiot - all a zombie has to do to get past you is put on a simple disguise. God help your family when the Zombie Apocalypse arrives, that's all I can say.)

And now you're just making an argument for argument's sake.

Do I need to go back and review all of your writings? I hope I don't find anything crazy and unrealistic in there, like you know, might not happen in real life but does in a video game.

They are mummies and in the context of the game, they turn you into a mummy with their breath (if you suck enough to actually get hit) and then with another breath they kill you. Sorry, it isn't your game or your place to rename or rework these game elements. Just like the argument over the 'affected spellings' at the other site. You're just obstinately defensive of your work to an embarrasing fault.

So I ask you again, in the 3rd game, how is it that the zombies can kill another zombie with their vomit? Have you ever heard of that in all you vast years of the study of mythology?

 

[Sam Madeupname]

(lithy - just out of interest, are you a bit embarrassed that your attempt to demonstrate gross factual errors in the original article has been reduced to your desperately trying to get Stuart to admit that zombies and mummys are marginally different? I mean, from my perspective it seems like the sort of thing that should make you feel really very silly.)

 

[RevStu]

So I ask you again, in the 3rd game, how is it that the zombies can kill another zombie with their vomit? Have you ever heard of that in all you vast years of the study of mythology?

You appear to have misheard my full and frank confession not to be a zombie expert.

Is this really all you've got left to justify/defend the vile lies and unfounded personal attacks that started this thread, by the way? Pedantic, deranged hairsplitting over a definition of an imaginary creature? I mean, I'm quite happy to carry on debating the undead just for the chuckles, but it seems a bit, y'know, weak as justification for a hate campaign and international sales boycott.

 

[kernow]

 

[lithy]

im sory lithy. i not do dem word finks proper no more cos it make u all fritened.

mayb if u not scared of da wrds u rply 2 sumfink wot ppl sed.

What is your stake in this again? Avid Retro Gamer reader? Someone justifying paying for content on a video game website? Ethnographer? General rabble rouser?

Here is your response. What you posted in all of your sarcasm, was an over simplification of the arguments so far.

The first part. No one has ever said that he doesn't know anything about games BECAUSE he curses. People have suggested and I would tend to agree with that he appears to have done a poor job of research for this piece and then instead of defending it with tact and factual backup for what he said he launches into multiple tirades against anyone who so much as asks why he wrote X. Cursing to back up your argument is a sure fire way to appear dimwitted.

I hope he's never written a thesis that he had to defend.

The second part. Again no one has suggested that because of his cursing he is no longer a professionally paid freelance video game writer. Instead, they've rightfully suggested that in all professions there is a certain sense of decency expected when representing your work or your employer. If your rough and tumble fireman just went off on a rant directed at a 5 year old parade goer like your buddy Stuart here he's like to get at least a talk. Meanwhile, in the middle of a fire, cursing is likely to be acceptable. Likewise, a curse in passing in Stuart's article would have gone completely unnoticed. i.e. "Metal Slug 3 is shit" or "Q: Why can't I keep from getting hit by these fucking zombies? A: I suck at these games." But by coming in here to defend his work and represent both himself and Retro Gamer (despite what he thinks about that he is) with rant after rant has made him appear to be quite unprofessional in his demeanor.

 

[lithy]

(lithy - just out of interest, are you a bit embarrassed that your attempt to demonstrate gross factual errors in the original article has been reduced to your desperately trying to get Stuart to admit that zombies and mummys are marginally different? I mean, from my perspective it seems like the sort of thing that should make you feel really very silly.)

I wasn't challenged to point out gross factual errors in his work. I was challenged to find a SINGLE factual error.

The content is of no concern to me, like I have stated before, I have not read the article.

Desperate? You've got Stuart over here continuing to backpedal into his "I'm not a zombie expert" routine. He refuses to give a straight answer to this question:

If it says mummy in the instruction book, will you concede that you made a minor error in your article?

 

[TonK]

All I have to, or care to add:

 

[SIXPACK]

No idea. Do you know any? Maybe we could ask them.

Actually i dont know any PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST who barks like a cheap whore on crack.

 

[Sam Madeupname]

What is your stake in this again? Avid Retro Gamer reader? Someone justifying paying for content on a video game website? Ethnographer? General rabble rouser?

Debonair champion. That's my role. I've never read Retro Gamer because it's my firm belief that we should just let bygones be bygones. I'm not sure what I could have paid for on a gaming site that needs justifying by arguing on a forum.

The first part. No one has ever said that he doesn't know anything about games BECAUSE he curses. People have suggested and I would tend to agree with that he appears to have done a poor job of research for this piece and then instead of defending it with tact and factual backup for what he said he launches into multiple tirades against anyone who so much as asks why he wrote X. Cursing to back up your argument is a sure fire way to appear dimwitted.

See, but this is your problem. On one side you're claiming the research for the article is poor (a very serious accusation against the author's professionalism) and on the other you're having a hissyfit over what to call the undead creatures in one bit of one game. It doesn't really match up, does it? Constantly restating that the original article was at fault without having given an example that anyone could take seriously seems an awful lot worse than cursing. To me, at least. But then I'm not a Victorian lady in a complicated petticoat.

The second part. Again no one has suggested that because of his cursing he is no longer a professionally paid freelance video game writer. Instead, they've rightfully suggested that in all professions there is a certain sense of decency expected when representing your work or your employer... But by coming in here to defend his work and represent both himself and Retro Gamer (despite what he thinks about that he is) with rant after rant has made him appear to be quite unprofessional in his demeanor.

Yes, it did take Deuce about five goes before he managed to get his professionalism argument right, didn't it? The problem is, your beliefs about how someone who writes about videogames (for hundreds of years considered the most noble and gentrified of professions) should behave in public are entirely in your own head.

I'm not sure he did come here to defend his work. I think he came here to call Bobak a dick. I think perhaps the cause of most people's frustration here is that they haven't managed to badger and bully Stu into defending the original article, presumably because no one has yet managed to level an accusation that requires a defence. Oh, apart from your rapier mummy/zombie attack. It'll be interesting to see if Retro Gamer has to close down after you spotted that.

Gloriously yours.

 

[RevStu]

I wasn't challenged to point out gross factual errors in his work. I was challenged to find a SINGLE factual error.

Indeed. And as yet you haven't. The "mummies" exhibit a primary characteristic consistent with zombies, not mummies (even mummies in fiction), and which is also consistent with the "zombies" in MS3. Is a zombie in a football shirt a footballer?

Really, you're backing a loser anyway in trying to prove a factual error about something that isn't factual. Do better, or have the courtesy and decency to stop spouting complete bollocks about "a poor job of research".

I mean, what's the actual point you're flailing around trying to make? That I don't know what a mummy looks like? Believe it or not, I'm familiar with the famous image of a being wrapped in bandages. But if it walks like a zombie and acts like a zombie, it's a fucking zombie, no matter what its fashion sense might be.

 

[RevStu]

Actually i dont know any PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST who barks like a cheap whore on crack.

I bow to your superior experience of cheap whores on crack.

 

[lithy]

Indeed. And as yet you haven't. The "mummies" exhibit a primary characteristic consistent with zombies, not mummies (even mummies in fiction), and which is also consistent with the "zombies" in MS3. Is a zombie in a football shirt a footballer?

Really, you're backing a loser anyway in trying to prove a factual error about something that isn't factual. Do better, or have the courtesy and decency to stop spouting complete bollocks about "a poor job of research".

I mean, what's the actual point you're flailing around trying to make? That I don't know what a mummy looks like? Believe it or not, I'm familiar with the famous image of a being wrapped in bandages. But if it walks like a zombie and acts like a zombie, it's a fucking zombie, no matter what its fashion sense might be.

If it says mummy in the instruction book, will you concede that you made a minor error in your article?

Let's try again. Simple theoretical question. Yes or no?

 

[TonK]

I bow to your superior experience of cheap whores on crack.

Better than your superior experience of Kid 'n Play movies, ugly.

I have a little time to kill, so lets share our frustrations?

You first!

(Oh, you're the black, portly child by the way.)

 

[RevStu]

I'm sure you can find my name somewhere,

That would require me to give a shit who you are. If you're too embarrassed to put your real name to your comments, that tells me all I need or wish to know.

 

[RevStu]

Better than your superior experience of Kid 'n Play movies, ugly.

I have a little time to kill, so lets share our frustrations?

You first!

You've lost me, I'm afraid. Is this a black thing? Apparently I'm a racist because I can't tell a zombie from a mummy, so that might be a productive area for insults.

 

[lithy]

If it says mummy in the instruction book, will you concede that you made a minor error in your article?

Don't forget me!

 

[Sam Madeupname]

Let's try again. Simple theoretical question. Yes or no?

Tee hee - and you got flustered when I said "desperate".

It was obvious from your first post in the thread that your intention was to be malicious. Now as you're still desperately trying to score a pedantic semantic point, I again wonder what your agenda is? You've not read the article, but you feel qualified to make absolute statements about its quality. Then when you're asked to back this up you excuse yourself by restating that you've not read it. Then you go on about the mummy again.

What's your plan? Obviously Stuart has stated he doesn't care whether they're called mummies or zombies, since they behave like zombies, so he talked about them as zombies. But were he to concede to your heffalump trap, what then? He says "Yes, it was a minor error," do you then leap in and shout, "A-HA! The proof at last that you failed to do proper research for your article!" Because it will make you look a bit of a prat. Especially since all this ridiculous side-debate has served to do is highlight that Stu definitely did play the section of the game involved, thus rather undermining that dickwad Bobak's original claims.

What are you up to, slime beast?

 

[TonK]

You've lost me, I'm afraid. Is this a black thing? Apparently I'm a racist because I can't tell a zombie from a mummy, so that might be a productive area for insults.

No insults.

You seem very distraught about people nitpicking your pathetic journalism.

Also, your age might also have some sort of impact on your seething anger towards this online community.

You don't seem happy.

Do you have some sort of reputation to uphold with all of your limey buddies by acting like a complete, uneducated degenerate?

I'm familiar with a few journalists - most of them would have ignored Bobak's thorough response to your inadequate work.

It seems like you're a well respected writer on your side of the pond.

Might I ask how you became so ornery in your responses to criticism?

 

[RevStu]

Oh, and by the by:

When in recorded history have you seen a bandage wrapped zombie that can be killed by another bandage wrapped zombie with additional contact from their expelled fluids?

Rather shot your own argument in the bollocks with that one, old bean. After all, in MS3 the "zombies" kill you if they get body fluids on you when you're already a zombie, just like the "mummies" do in MS2. So by your logic, since zombies don't do that, the "zombies" in MS3 aren't actually zombies either, which blows your entire debating position to pieces.

Man, I sure do love arguing about zombies!