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

[strider]

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."

 

[Metal Slugnuts]

Jesus, are you guys really arguing about something so trivial? Is the zombie versus mummy controversy really the make-or-break point for the article in question?

A mummy is a dead body that has been embalmed and wrapped in strips of cloth. A zombie is a dead body that has become reanimated. The two are not mutually exclusive. The creatures to whom you are all referring are mummies, meaning that they are dead bodies embalmed and wrapped in cloth, that have become reanimated (and can spread their condition to the living), and are therefore also zombies. This isn't rocket science.

Whether the manual refers to them as mummies or zombies is neither here nor there. To describe them as zombies is perfectly acceptable as a desctiptive term because that's what they are, as well as being mummies. Is the author equally incorrect if he doesn't go out of his way to point out that their skin is blue?

Don't get me wrong. I'm pretty blown away by the author's behavior in this thread, but I have to say that over the last few pages, he hasn't been the most pathetic thing about this thread.

I can't believe I'm diving into the whole mummy/zombie thing, but here goes.

There's one important point in the whole mummy/zombie debate that everyone's forgetting: context.

In MS2, the "zombies" are wrapped in cloth, appear in the middle of an Egyptian temple, and walk out of sarcophagi. Hence, mummies.

In MS3, the "zombies" are ordinary citizens turned into undead monsters through contact with other citizen monsters, in the middle of a graveyard. Hence, your classic 20th century movie zombies.

You can argue semantics all you want Stuart, but to try to justify calling bandage-wrapped undead in the middle of an Egyptian temple anything other than mummies is pretty sad.

Plus, it's just a dodge to how shitty your article is.

EDIT: Also lithy, I don't have the AES of MS2, but I do have the CD version and a complete art set for the MVS...there's no description of any enemy at all. Same goes for the MS Anthology manual. The Xbox manual of MS3 does say zombie for those enemies, though.

 

[TonK]

Actually, it doesn't. That's explained by the fact that I've only applied for one job in the last 15 years, because I like making a living while still having five days off a week.

Do you own anything?

Rent?

So basically, you live your life on the internet.

I'm sure you use those 5 days off to shout at people on retro gaming websites - because its obvious that you don't use your time off wisely.

Also, remember that you are 41 years old, arguing with Neo-Geo enthusiasts on the internet, on a Friday evening.

Thats proof enough.

See, I don't know too many 41 year olds that look like you, let alone act like you.

You hang with the younger crowd, yes?

 

[RevStu]

Do you own anything?

Rent?

So basically, you live your life on the internet.

I'm sure you use those 5 days off to shout at people on retro gaming websites - because its obvious that you don't use your time off wisely.

Also, remember that you are 41 years old, arguing with Neo-Geo enthusiasts on the internet, on a Friday evening.

It's still afternoon here. I spent the morning in the park feeding squirrels, but now it's dull and overcast and a bit cold so I'm indoors until dinner time. Would you like to see some nice pictures of squirrels?

See, I don't know too many 41 year olds that look like you, let alone act like you.

I can't tell you how sad I am for you. (You do know that picture was taken c.1994, don't you?)

I can sense you're DESPERATE to be asked how your life's working out, so why don't you just cut the foreplay and list your possessions for us?

 

[genjiglove]

I want to see the squirrels.

 

[Sam Madeupname]

Do you own anything?

Rent?

So basically, you live your life on the internet.

Ooh, ooh, I'm good at this game!

TonK, do you have children?

Would you rescue a drowning child?

So basically, you're a child murderer? How many children have you killed this week, you SICKO?

It's fun to ask questions, make up the answers, and then use those made up answers as a basis for something or other.

Also, it's enormously funny when someone tries to prove another is at fault by pointing out that they're posting on a forum. Um. There's just something about it that doesn't work, isn't there? If I could just put my finger on what.

I seriously can't believe you deliberately drowned that child. Good grief.

 

[Mike]

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.

BEST POST EVER!

Holy shit - I'm crying in my office....

 

[Metal Slugnuts]

I can't believe I'm diving into the whole mummy/zombie thing, but here goes.

There's one important point in the whole mummy/zombie debate that everyone's forgetting: context.

In MS2, the "zombies" are wrapped in cloth, appear in the middle of an Egyptian temple, and walk out of sarcophagi. Hence, mummies.

In MS3, the "zombies" are ordinary citizens turned into undead monsters through contact with other citizen monsters, in the middle of a graveyard. Hence, your classic 20th century movie zombies.

You can argue semantics all you want Stuart, but to try to justify calling bandage-wrapped undead in the middle of an Egyptian temple anything other than mummies is pretty sad.

Plus, it's just a dodge to how shitty your article is.

EDIT: Also lithy, I don't have the AES of MS2, but I do have the CD version and a complete art set for the MVS...there's no description of any enemy at all. Same goes for the MS Anthology manual. The Xbox manual of MS3 does say zombie for those enemies, though.

STUART

OVER HERE

 

[Jibbajaba]

In MS2, the "zombies" are wrapped in cloth, appear in the middle of an Egyptian temple, and walk out of sarcophagi. Hence, mummies.

They are either mummified zombies or, more accurately, zombified mummies. If they were simply mummies, they would be laying on the ground all dry and shriveled up. The fact that they are zombies is what allows them to be enemies in the first place, so some might say that their zombie status trumps their mummy status.

If I had written the article then I would have mentioned that they were mummies, but one might argue that there was no need to state the obvious. The fact that, as you state, the level is in the middle of an Egyptian temple and that the creatures are walking out of sarcophagi makes it plainly obvious that they are mummies. It is the fact that they are also zombies that makes them noteworthy, because it is by way of their zombiness that they turn you into a fellow zombie and then try to kill you.

Chris

 

[RevStu]

I want to see the squirrels.

Your wish is my command!

I have a cracking shot of a bee too, if you'd like to see that.

 

[RevStu]

If I had written the article then I would have mentioned that they were mummies, but one might argue that there was no need to state the obvious.

Hey, the original poster was furious that I didn't say that Nazca wrote the first game, even though that fact is emblazoned on the title screen for all to see. You can't be too careful with these guys.

 

[Metal Slugnuts]

They are either mummified zombies or, more accurately, zombified mummies. If they were simply mummies, they would be laying on the ground all dry and shriveled up. The fact that they are zombies is what allows them to be enemies in the first place, so some might say that their zombie status trumps their mummy status.

If I had written the article then I would have mentioned that they were mummies, but one might argue that there was no need to state the obvious. The fact that, as you state, the level is in the middle of an Egyptian temple and that the creatures are walking out of sarcophagi makes it plainly obvious that they are mummies. It is the fact that they are also zombies that makes them noteworthy, because it is by way of their zombiness that they turn you into a fellow zombie and then try to kill you.

Chris

Well said. Too bad Stuart didn't say it and instead decided to spam squirrel pics.

You have absolutely no pride in your work, do you Stuart? From your posting, it seems like all you care about is your fragile little ego and e-rep as a flamer/troll and couldn't give any less of a shit about the content you submit to RG so long as you get paid for it.

 

[Jedah Doma]

It's kind of like a cult, isn't it? I like that. it's sweet. Bobak can spew out any old drivel, and his acolytes accept it as a new gospel. I'd love to see someone try and explain one of these "viable points". Wait, don't tell me, it's the one where he gets cross because the article isn't a review of a Ford Cortina, right?

Come on, surely the bit where the editor of Retro Gamer came in and pointed out quite how embarrassingly wrong Bobak's position was swayed at least one or two people into doubting his holy word? Or the bit where Bobak not only failed to get the (-Ed) joke, but then after it was explained to him by two people, continued to shout furiously about how he didn't get it? Since you've all been waiting to find out, yes, that was my favourite bit of this thread. Write that down. The bit where Bobak carried on shouting about how it was a "mistake", after the editor of the magazine and author of the article explained to him that it was a running joke that he didn't get. Aw, poor widdle cwoss man didn't get the mean joke!

No, sorry, I apologise. Bobak said it so it's true. It wasn't a joke, it wasn't a running gag from the articles, but it was in fact a mistake. A mistake that the editor chose not to correct when editing, but rather to write about in parentheses afterward, for, um, some reason... Oh yes, it was last minute - that was the decree given. I know for sure that when I'm editing something at the last minute I don't have time for the Delete key - I'm not made of time!

Hope you're well.

Call him Bobak, or say it was the Queen of England who made those points, doesn't change the fact he called Stu out on his poor writing and research.

And instead of having some class and adressing the issues, Stu comes in here and starts spewing his tear filled rants.

So we're in a cult and you're stuck in an infinite circle jerk with Stu. Pot. Kettle. Black.

 

[RevStu]

Well said.

You did notice that he was agreeing with me, didn't you? They're zombies. Zombified mummies, perhaps, but unquestionably zombies.

If they were simply mummies, they would be laying on the ground all dry and shriveled up. The fact that they are zombies is what allows them to be enemies in the first place

Since you approve of his post, I therefore conclude that you agree with me too. We're all agreed! They're zombies! Phew, that was hard work but we got there in the end! Now, what was Error 2?

 

[RevStu]

Call him Bobak, or say it was the Queen of England who made those points, doesn't change the fact he called Stu out on his poor writing and research.

I think the phrase you're looking for is "told a lot of idiotic lies based entirely on his own hopeless misunderstanding of both the feature and basic English, and which were comprehensively refuted by both the author of the feature and the editor of the magazine", but otherwise good work, carry on.

 

[Sam Madeupname]

Call him Bobak, or say it was the Queen of England who made those points, doesn't change the fact he called Stu out on his poor writing and research.

And instead of having some class and adressing the issues, Stu comes in here and starts spewing his tear filled rants.

So we're in a cult and you're stuck in an infinite circle jerk with Stu. Pot. Kettle. Black.

No no no no no no no no no no no no no. You've quite misunderstood. You see, what you've done there is you've repeated your leader's claim that there was "poor research" in the article. If you want to prove that you're not blindly following his every word, you'll have to say what was poorly researched, like Bobak didn't. I don't imagine you will, because it's pretty unlikely that you'll have read the article, and are in fact just repeating without question. It's cute! Don't be ashamed.

I don't know if there are factual errors or proof of poor research in the article. No one's offered any so far, which indicates there probably isn't. But if there is, by God I'll be so angry with Stuart. I'll be at the front of the line to call him a mean name!

It'll be fun when Bobak starts handing out Kool-Aid!

 

[Metal Slugnuts]

You did notice that he was agreeing with me, didn't you? They're zombies. Zombified mummies, perhaps, but unquestionably zombies.



Since you approve of his post, I therefore conclude that you agree with me too. We're all agreed! They're zombies! Phew, that was hard work but we got there in the end! Now, what was Error 2?

Hmmm...you skipped right over my criticism of your work and jumped straight back into the stupid zombie/mummy semantic fight again. How utterly predictable and telling.

Stuart, if you're so proud of your work why don't you provide us with the original text or, better yet, scans of the article in question? If your article really is "perfect", then you have nothing to hide...right?

 

[RevStu]

Hmmm...you skipped right over my criticism of your work and jumped straight back into the stupid zombie/mummy semantic fight again. How utterly predictable and telling.

That's because your "criticism" of my work (which, hilariously, you admit you haven't read) was in fact just empty, baseless, ignorant abuse, and the only way to appropriately respond to it would be to tell you to go fuck yourself, and we've been there already.

If you want scans, why don't you ask Bobak? Funnily enough I don't really feel like going to a lot of effort on your behalf.

 

[lithy]

The fact that a square is also a rectangle does not mean that the most appropriate word for a quadrilateral with equal parallel sides is rectangle.

Also makes me wonder why there have been so many movies made called "The Mummy" or some variation. I sure do wonder how many stupified people were there wondering why that supposed mummy was walking around. I mean if the title was "The Zombified Mummy" then maybe, but just "The Mummy"? I expected 2 hours of watching a stationary corpse continue its slight deterioration!

 

[Sam Madeupname]

Hmmm...you skipped right over my criticism of your work and jumped straight back into the stupid zombie/mummy semantic fight again. How utterly predictable and telling.

Stuart, if you're so proud of your work why don't you provide us with the original text or, better yet, scans of the article in question? If your article really is "perfect", then you have nothing to hide...right?

Kan - just a point as an observer. Your entire post was about the mummy/zombie thing - something you brought up again after it had been put to rest. You don't mention anything else, other than to declare a thing you haven't read is "shitty".

So how exactly was his discussing the zombie thing with you skipping over your imaginary criticism?

Are you too stupid to do conversations? Don't worry if you are - but it's helpful for other people to know before they get you all confused.

 

[Metal Slugnuts]

That's because your "criticism" of my work (which, hilariously, you admit you haven't read) was in fact just empty, baseless, ignorant abuse, and the only way to appropriately respond to it would be to tell you to go fuck yourself, and we've been there already.

If you want scans, why don't you ask Bobak? Funnily enough I don't really feel like going to a lot of effort on your behalf.

I agree that Bobak probably should have included scans in the first paragraph, but it's not his integrity that's on the line, is it?

If you stand by your work, then you'll post the text/scans and supposedly shut a lot of people up. Pretty simple.

 

[RevStu]

The fact that a square is also a rectangle does not mean that the most appropriate word for a quadrilateral with equal parallel sides is rectangle.

Also makes me wonder why there have been so many movies made called "The Mummy" or some variation.

So many, and yet still I await the name of one in which the mummy can turn other people into mummies, like zombies can.

 

[Metal Slugnuts]

Kan - just a point as an observer. Your entire post was about the mummy/zombie thing, you don't mention anything else, other than to declare a thing you haven't read is "shitty".

So how exactly was his discussing the zombie thing with you skipping over your imaginary criticism?

Are you too stupid to do conversations? Don't worry if you are - but it's helpful for other people to know before they get you all confused.

Why are you here again? You've already admitted that you don't read RG at all...

I say he's just Stuart's e-thug friend who came to back him up...there are plenty of more rewarding trolling opportunities for a random griefer than this.

 

[RevStu]

I agree that Bobak probably should have included scans in the first paragraph, but it's not his integrity that's on the line, is it?

Mine either, love. If the people who commission me start questioning it, I'll worry. When some illiterate retard on the internet does it and a bunch of fuckwits agree with him without even having read the thing in question, you'd be surprised how little sleep I lose.

 

[Sam Madeupname]

The fact that a square is also a rectangle does not mean that the most appropriate word for a quadrilateral with equal parallel sides is rectangle.

Also makes me wonder why there have been so many movies made called "The Mummy" or some variation. I sure do wonder how many stupified people were there wondering why that supposed mummy was walking around. I mean if the title was "The Zombified Mummy" then maybe, but just "The Mummy"? I expected 2 hours of watching a stationary corpse continue its slight deterioration!

Aw come on lithy, you can't just ignore the posts where people keep asking you why you're so obsessively deranged about this genuinely semantic point. I asked you very impolitely what your real agenda was, since you're so desperate to score this most sophomoric of points, yet persist in making qualitative statements as to the nature of an article you admit you haven't read. The least you could do is give a stupid, mealy-mouthed non-answer.