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

[RevStu]

Can we please add backpedaling to Stu's illustrious list of journalistic acolades?

Only if we can add "illustrious" to the long list of words you don't understand the meaning or application of in English.

 

[RevStu]

while some (myself included) believe there's still a code of professional honor you should uphold.

Oh, I agree with that completely. I do indeed have a code of honour, which I've already detailed some pages ago. It's pretty simple:

- If people make reasoned, logical, fair criticisms in a civil manner, respond to them in a reasoned, logical, fair and civilised way.

- If ignorant dickheads make a bunch of outrageous, offensive, untrue allegations based entirely on lies and their own idiotic misunderstandings of things which are staggeringly obvious to even a 12-year-old, accompanied by rather unpleasant abuse such as accusing one of "shitting out crap", then treat them like ignorant dickheads, because it's always fun to irritate total fucking cretins. (In fact, it's more than fun, it's a social responsibility.)

Is it really SO hard to follow, Steve?

 

[RevStu]

Stu, KanYozakura DOES NOT represent Neo-Geo.com in any way.

Please don't respond to him.

He really is retarded.

I only got here yesterday, and on the evidence presented so far, I absolutely genuinely, hand on my heart, can't distinguish between you.

 

[strider]

I'll just state that in my eyes, that is a factual error. If you do not believe it to be such that is fine, I would just like to hear that.

In my opinion it would be like conflating the UK and England.

Or in more career appropriate terms, what if he had referred to the rocks in Asteroids as meteors or comets?

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.

 

[Jedah Doma]

Only if we can add "illustrious" to the long list of words you don't understand the meaning or application of in English.

Moral of the thread, if you don't agree with Stu, you don't understand English.

 

[Sam Madeupname]

People? You are referring to yourself in the plural now I suppose.

Nope - there's been at least three people ask. But whatever.

If you would like to quote me where I called out the quality of the article (without using qualifiers), we can go from there.

Okay!

It was when you said,

"I would tend to agree with that he appears to have done a poor job of research for this piece"

Hope that helps.

He and the editor asked for one factual error. There is one that he has failed to disprove.

So again I ask: why are you so interested in scoring that point? I want to know what happens when you win. If you've not read the article, and you don't care about Lord Bobak's decrees, then what investment do you have in having this one alleged factual error of such unimaginably little import proven? You have asked about four hundred times about this now, repeating it again and again, quoting your own posts, diverting other replies, coming back to it over and over. It clearly matters that you get the answer you want. So say why.

 

[Steve]

Oh, I agree with that completely. I do indeed have a code of honour, which I've already detailed some pages ago. It's pretty simple:

- If people make reasoned, logical, fair criticisms in a civil manner, respond to them in a reasoned, logical, fair and civilised way.

- If ignorant dickheads make a bunch of outrageous, offensive, untrue allegations based entirely on lies and their own idiotic misunderstandings of things which are staggeringly obvious to even a 12-year-old, accompanied by rather unpleasant abuse such as accusing one of "shitting out crap", then treat them like ignorant dickheads, because it's always fun to irritate total fucking cretins. (In fact, it's more than fun, it's a social responsibility.)

Is it really SO hard to follow, Steve?

Here's Bobak's full paragraph with regards to that "shitting out crap" part you've quoted:

The author doesn't actually know the storyline of the series he's writing a feature on: he ends his own introductory section with "So join The Definitive one more time as we strap on an ammo belt, wade into the fray, and see if we can't get to the bottom of who that pesky Liquid Ocelot really is once and for all." Okay... any guesses what's wrong here? Thankfully RG put in an editorial note that he mistakenly mentioned a character from Metal Gear...but even that begs a question of why didn't they have him do a rewrite (answer: someone was probably shitting something out at the last second for a deadline).


Notice that the actual quote is "shitting something out." But let's move on. Stu your first reply I believe started off with "Hello idiots!" Very mature.

I'm not saying you're the only one in this topic who has a lot of "piss and steam" in their posts, but that doesn't mean you have to act the same (or worse). Instead you're caught up in this e-dick contest of sorts, obviously unwilling to let it go. Look at this topic. It's insanity. I can't believe you have the time or made the effort you have in these what, 12, 13 pages?

Just ignore it and move on.

Otherwise, it will never end. If you really feel these opinions are unworthy of your time, you would stop posting and move on. "Is it really SO hard to follow, Stuart?"

 

[RevStu]

Notice that the actual quote is "shitting something out."

I was precis-ing the entire post, obviously. The second part came with "so I get frustrated when I see purported professionals turning out this crap". He's saying it's crap, and that I'm shitting it out, so I think it's fair to summarise his position as that I'm shitting out crap, rather than quote all eleventy-hundred words of it every time.

But let's move on. Stu your first reply I believe started off with "Hello idiots!" Very mature.

I absolutely love this one. The thing I love is that you appear to think that I believe such a salutation is mature, and that oh no, you better step in and put me right! Did you not bother reading what I said above? I'm not trying to be mature. I'm consciously and deliberately treating people like ignorant dickheads, because that's the code.

but that doesn't mean you have to act the same (or worse).

It does, though. That's the code.

I can't believe you have the time or made the effort you have in these what, 12, 13 pages?

Just ignore it and move on.

Who are you to tell me what I can and can't do, or what is and isn't an entertaining way to spend my time? Some people watch Big Brother.

If you really feel these opinions are unworthy of your time,

When did I say such a thing? I've said they were unworthy of consideration, certainly, but my time? I have oceans of that.

 

[lithy]

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.

Since we have Stu's answer, if you don't mind I'll phrase my question one more way. Would it be a factual error to refer to them as zombies if printed material from SNK called them mummies?

I just found it interesting that Stuart said he will call them zombies regardless of what an instruction manual or similar might say.

Other than that, I'm done with the thread. Thanks for your replies, they took much less time to acquire than Stu's.

 

[RevStu]

I'll just state that in my eyes, that is a factual error. If you do not believe it to be such that is fine, I would just like to hear that.

In my opinion it would be like conflating the UK and England.

Excellent. In that case I look forward to hearing your criticism of Bobak for repeatedly referring to me as an "Englishman", which I'm not, and which is therefore a 100% factual error. Just because one speaks English doesn't mean one is English.

 

[Professor Denim]

Your wish is my command!

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

i´m starting to like you.honest.

 

[Steve]

It does, though. That's the code.

Sure, if one believes in the ole eye for an eye code. I understand if someone socks you on the street, that you would do the same. But such a situation as that and THIS ONE on the internet aren't exactly the same, are they? I guess we just have different beliefs. I believe you can debate with someone without stooping to insulting, sarcasm or cursing, but maybe that's just me. And if that's (that being insulting, sarcasm and/or cursing) all they have to use on me, then it's not worth my time bothering with.

But obviously:

When did I say such a thing? I've said they were unworthy of consideration, certainly, but my time? I have oceans of that.

Not doing the marriage and kid thing eh?

 

[Sam Madeupname]

If you would like to quote me where I called out the quality of the article (without using qualifiers), we can go from there.

dot dot dot

Other than that, I'm done with the thread.

But you promised we could go from when I quoted you the bit where you called out the quality of the article! You're such a liar - I'm so telling on you.

You've also not revealed why you're so invested in the ridiculous mummy/zombie nonsense. It's weird that you're so shy to come forward with an answer, but so repeatedly insistent on getting one. Go on, just tell us, for closure.

 

[RevStu]

I believe you can debate with someone without stooping to insulting, sarcasm or cursing, but maybe that's just me.

Oh, I believe that too. It's possible, but it's not always compulsory.

Not doing the marriage and kid thing eh?

No, since I'm not quite ready to stop having sex yet.

 

[Rade K]

At the very least, maybe we'll get a few more spicy new members out of this silly ordeal.

 

[Jedah Doma]

Oh, I believe that too. It's possible, but it's not always compulsory.



No, since I'm not quite ready to stop having sex yet.

Stop would imply you've started.

Just a passing thought.

BTW: Ladies and Gents, Stu isn't interested in proving himself right. If he truly were, he would have posted the article ages ago and had a real discussion about it. Instead, he's content with the same tried and true line he's been following since the word go.

In all honesty, I'm now sure why he's still posting other then to add some footnote to his otherwise useless existence.

Keep at it Stu. Smoke and mirrors FTW.

At the very least, maybe we'll get a few more spicy members out of this silly ordeal.

Good point.

 

[RevStu]

At the very least, maybe we'll get a few more spicy members out of this silly ordeal.

You like some spicy members, then?

 

[lithy]

"I would tend to agree with that he appears to have done a poor job of research for this piece"

Hope that helps.

So again I ask: why are you so interested in scoring that point? I want to know what happens when you win. If you've not read the article, and you don't care about Lord Bobak's decrees, then what investment do you have in having this one alleged factual error of such unimaginably little import proven? You have asked about four hundred times about this now, repeating it again and again, quoting your own posts, diverting other replies, coming back to it over and over. It clearly matters that you get the answer you want. So say why.

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.

There is the full quote for reference. I never suggested the research was poor. I suggested that with the way he came in to defend himself, I have few other opinions to form. He comes off as stubborn and incapable of forming a competent defense on his own behalf.

And why am I here? This is the forum I spend 99% of my time on. I didn't migrate to this thread from elsewhere on the internet to stir shit up, I'm just responding to the mounds of drivel he has managed to drool out in the last 24 hours.

As for why I have to ask 400 times? You may have to ask Stu why he is so keen to avoid simple questions until they are posed to him 400 times.

 

[RevStu]

Stop would imply you've started.

WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!!

The classic!

"I disagree with you, so you mustn't be having any sex!"

Can we have Hitler before page 14, please?

 

[strider]

Since we have Stu's answer, if you don't mind I'll phrase my question one more way. Would it be a factual error to refer to them as zombies if printed material from SNK called them mummies?

I've been playing Demon's Souls today and the manual states that you do a specific move by pressing a certain button. In actual fact the move is done by pressing a different button completely.

 

[RevStu]

There is the full quote for reference. I never suggested the research was poor.

People have suggested and I would tend to agree with that he appears to have done a poor job of research for this piece

You are one seriously confused little puppy.

 

[Jedah Doma]

WOOHOO!!!!!!!!!!!

The classic!

"I disagree with you, so you mustn't be having any sex!"

Can we have Hitler before page 14, please?

That's "TEH CODE" right? *three obligatory tickled smilies*

 

[lithy]

I've been playing Demon's Souls today and the manual states that you do a specific move by pressing a certain button. In actual fact the move is done by pressing a different button completely.

I would agree with you if the manual called them frogs or hamburgers. But let's just assume it calls them mummies. A totally reasonable name. Is calling them zombies a factual error?

A typo is easily spotted since as you say, the move would not work if you press the button that is printed. A name on the other hand, you can't presume that "Oh they wrote mummies, but surely they meant zombies".

Or maybe you can.

Just let me know.

 

[Rade K]

You like some spicy members, then?

 

[lithy]

You are one seriously confused little puppy.

I like how I gave you the entire quote and you proceeded to shorten it as well. If you would continue to read, the meaning of the statement is that when you come into a thread to challenge assertions that your writing was poorly researched by starting a total shitstorm of name calling, who am I likely to believe? Someone who posted something to a forum as feedback to the author in a harsh but fairly reasonable manner or the author that instead of backing up his own work proceeds to try and shout down everyone on the forum?